final report - dss · pdf filepre-marriage education pilot project final report to ......

FINAL REPORT

PRE-MARRIAGE EDUCATION PILOT PROJECTFAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES

99158 February, 2001

PRE-MARRIAGE EDUCATION PILOT PROJECT

FINAL REPORT TO

PREPARED BY

MARKETING AND COMMUNICATIONSRESEARCH CONSULTANTS

Job No. : 99158Date : February, 2001 Rhonda Zappelli, B.App.Sc., B.A.

NFO DONOVAN RESEARCH – PRE-MARRIAGE EDUCATION PILOT PROJECT 99158

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES..........................................11.1. Background ....................................................................................... 11.2. Research objectives .......................................................................... 31.3. Report structure................................................................................. 3

2 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND STRATEGICRECOMMENDATIONS ..............................................................52.1. Recommendations for future delivery of MRE services..................... 8

3 SUMMARY OF RESEARCH FINDINGS – VOUCHEREVALUATION...........................................................................123.1. Exposure and Disposition to the voucher ........................................ 123.2. Use of the voucher .......................................................................... 13

3.2.1. Redemption levels ........................................................................ 133.2.2. Intended use ................................................................................. 143.2.3. Where used / intend to use voucher.............................................. 143.2.4. Type of activity voucher used for .................................................. 143.2.5. Attendance at alternate MRE activities.......................................... 15

3.3. MRE activities undertaken using the voucher.................................. 163.3.1. Status of activity undertaken ......................................................... 163.3.2. Effect on relationship of undertaking activity ................................. 163.3.3. Aspects of attendance .................................................................. 163.3.4. Satisfaction with course content.................................................... 163.3.5. Personal effects of participation in MRE........................................ 173.3.6. Usefulness of activity .................................................................... 17

3.4. Attitudes towards marriage and relationship education................... 173.4.1. Importance of MRE....................................................................... 173.4.2. Relevance of MRE ........................................................................ 173.4.3. Main aim of MRE .......................................................................... 183.4.4. Perceived barriers to participating in MRE .................................... 18

3.5. Comparison between clients of civil celebrants in voucher andcontrol locations ......................................................................................... 18

4 RESEARCH METHOD .............................................................194.1. Overall Method ................................................................................ 194.2. Sample collection ............................................................................ 204.3. Sampling Procedure........................................................................ 214.4. Questionnaires ................................................................................ 234.5. Field Statistics ................................................................................. 244.6. Demographics ................................................................................. 254.7. Data weighting................................................................................. 274.8. Data analysis ................................................................................... 28

5 EXPOSURE AND DISPOSITION TO THE VOUCHER.............32


5.1. Where voucher was obtained.......................................................... 325.2. How the voucher was offered .......................................................... 345.3. Acceptance of the voucher.............................................................. 37

6 USE OF THE VOUCHER .........................................................396.1. Professed redemption of the voucher ............................................. 396.2. Intended use.................................................................................... 406.3. Reasons for non-use ....................................................................... 426.4. Where used / intend to use voucher................................................ 426.5. Type of activity on which voucher used........................................... 476.6. Attendance at alternate MRE activities............................................ 49

7 MRE ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN USING THE VOUCHER ....567.1. Status of activity undertaken ........................................................... 567.2. Effect on relationship of undertaking activity ................................... 587.3. Aspects of attendance at activity ..................................................... 597.4. Satisfaction with content of activity.................................................. 617.5. Personal effects of participation in MRE.......................................... 647.6. Perceived usefulness of MRE activity ............................................. 64

8 ATTITUDES TOWARDS MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIPEDUCATION ............................................................................678.1. Perceived importance of MRE......................................................... 678.2. Perceived relevance of MRE ........................................................... 718.3. Perceived main aim of MRE............................................................ 748.4. Perceived barriers to participating in MRE activities........................ 78

9 PROFILE OF SELECTED VOUCHER USERS ........................83

10 SUMMARY OF RESEARCH FINDINGS– KITEVALUATION...........................................................................91

11 RESEARCH METHOD .............................................................9311.1. Overall Method ................................................................................ 9311.2. Questionnaire .................................................................................. 9311.3. Data Weighting................................................................................ 9311.4. Sample Demographics .................................................................... 94

12 ATTITUDES TOWARDS MRE..................................................9612.1. Perceived importance of marriage education .................................. 9612.2. Perceived relevance of MRE ........................................................... 9712.3. Previous attendance at MRE activities ............................................ 9812.4. Perceived barriers to participating in MRE activities........................ 99

13 THE KIT AND ITS COMPONENTS ........................................10213.1. How found out about the kit........................................................... 10213.2. Kit usage ....................................................................................... 10313.3. Perceived usefulness of the kit...................................................... 112


13.4. Overall assessment of the kit ........................................................ 11413.5. Intentions of future use.................................................................. 12313.6. Disposition towards the kit............................................................. 125


14 THE VOUCHER SCHEME .....................................................12614.1. Exposure to the voucher scheme.................................................. 12614.2. Acceptance of the voucher............................................................ 12714.3. Usage of the voucher .................................................................... 12714.4. Intentions regarding future attendance at MRE............................. 128

15 RELATIONSHIP PROFILES ..................................................130

QUESTIONNAIRES: VOUCHER LOCATIONS, CONTROLLOCATIONS AND KIT EVALUATION

APPENDIX A : QUALITATIVE RESEARCH AMONGSTCELEBRANTS, COUPLES AND SERVICEPROVIDERS

APPENDIX B : CELEBRANT SURVEY

- 1 -


1 BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

1.1. Background

The Department of Family and Community Services (FaCS), through its FamilyRelationships Branch, administers the Family Relationships Services Program(FRSP), which provides services to support family relationships through more thanninety community-based organisations across Australia.

The services that the FRSP provides are designed to enable children, youngpeople and adults, in all their diversity, to develop and sustain safe, supportive andnurturing family relationships and to minimise the emotional, social and economiccosts associated with disruption to family relationships.

The Government’s family relationship policy emphasises the importance ofpreventing relationship difficulties through the provision of early interventionservices. The services provided include education, counselling, mediation, andskill training at all points of the family life cycle. Pre-marriage education can assistpeople to access information and develop skills in relating more effectively withtheir partner. This enables couples to enhance their relationship and identify andresolve issues before they become difficult and intractable problems.

Couples who have already participated in marriage and relationship educationhave indicated that they believe that by so doing they have attained clear benefitsthat are of lasting value to their relationships. Pre-marriage education is thereforeseen to be a key strategy in providing couples with the necessary skills to sustainsuccessful and rewarding relationships.

The Federal Government has undertaken a pre-marriage education pilot project toencourage engaged couples to participate in pre-marriage education.

The pre-marriage education pilot was in two parts. The first part, the provision of avoucher for couples in the pilot area who register their intention to marry, waslaunched in November 1999 and ran for twelve months.

The voucher enabled couples to access the important information and skillsavailable through pre-marriage education for free. Launceston and Perth wereselected as the pilot sites for the voucher scheme.

All marriage celebrants (religious and secular) in the pilot locations wereencouraged to participate in the voucher project and those who agreed to takepart were trained by FaCS for their role. Celebrants offered each marrying couplewho approached them, a voucher for pre-marriage education, which they could

- 2 -


take to an FRSP service provider and redeem for pre-marriage education servicesto the value of $200. A very small number of vouchers were also provided via anadvertised Hotline

The second part of the trial was a relationship education kit, which was designedto attract those who either could not or did not wish to attend face-to-face services.The kit was put together by the Department and consists of a video-tape, anaudio-tape and a booklet that contains articles about relationship issues and a setof quizzes.

'While the vouchers were available to couples largely through participatingmarriage celebrants, several distribution methods were used for the kits duringtheir four-month release period (July-October 2000). In Perth the kits were largelydistributed at Bridal Fairs / Expos and other show venues, in rural South Australiaby a combination of celebrants and via a Hotline (the number for which wasadvertised in local newspapers), and in Launceston mainly via celebrants. TheBridal Fairs / Expos, other show venues and the Hotline accounted for the vastmajority of kit distribution.

This difference in distribution methods compared to the voucher scheme results ina sample that is largely self-selecting, ie. the person / couple has chosen to pickup the kit at a show or by ringing the Hotline to get one. Conversely, the vouchers(and possibly the idea of pre-marriage education) were introduced to couples viatheir celebrant and each couple then had the choice of whether or not to acceptthe voucher and following that, of whether or not to use the voucher. It would beexpected therefore, that vouchers were distributed to couples from a broaderrange of attitudinal backgrounds than were the kits.

In addition to the evaluative projects mentioned above, two additional componentsof research were conducted. They are:

- Qualitative research amongst celebrants, couples, and service providersto assess their exposure to and experiences of the kit and voucher; and

- A quantitative survey amongst celebrants to assess their satisfactionwith the administration of the voucher scheme.

- 3 -


1.2. Research objectives

The primary research objectives of the pre-marriage education pilot projectincluded to:

• Test whether the voucher scheme and / or kit increases the utilisation ofmarriage and relationship education (MRE) services;

• Test the impact of the voucher scheme and kit on the level of skills andknowledge of participants taking advantage of the services;

• Test whether the voucher scheme and kit are practical methods of providinginformation and skills in MRE;

• Identify the demographic characteristics of those who take up the voucher oruse the kit, relative to those who are eligible who do not;

• Identify the relative effectiveness of the different types of services coveredby the voucher and the components of the kit;

• Determine the personal attitudinal factors which impact on the choice toparticipate or take up the offers covered by the voucher; and

• Develop recommendations for future delivery of MRE services based onprofessed use of the voucher and kit.

1.3. Report structure

This report is the final report and covers all components of the evaluation projectas follows:

• Summary of findings and strategic recommendations

• Part 1 - Evaluation of the voucher;

• Part 2 – Evaluation of the Kit;

• Appendix A - Qualitative Research amongst Couples, Celebrants andService Providers; and

• Appendix B – Survey of Celebrants.

Note: Comparisons between voucher and kit data are included in Part 2 –Evaluation of the kit.

- 4 -


SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ANDSTRATEGIC RECOMMENDATIONS

- 5 -


2 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND STRATEGICRECOMMENDATIONS

➠ Did the voucher and / or kit increase the utilisation of MRE services?

Voucher• In terms of increased utilisation of services, the couples of most

interest in the voucher locations are those who have used or intend touse the voucher but would have done nothing without it. Acrossthe total voucher sample, a quarter of couples fell into this category.It can therefore be deduced that the voucher pilot successfullyencouraged around 25% of marrying couples who would nototherwise have done so, to attend MRE.

• There is the confounding factor of the Catholic agency in Perthheavily promoting the use of the voucher, thereby artificially inflatingthe figures of those who would have had to do something. Thissuggests that the success rate might have been slightly higheramongst the target group, had this not occurred.

Kit• Since the kit was a new product, any usage can be seen as a positive

outcome.

• Across the total sample of kit recipients, two thirds (65%) said theyhad used one or more parts of the kit, and half of the partners ofrespondents (52%) were said to have used some item of the kit.

• Across the total sample a third of kit recipients had used the bookletand / or the video in depth (ie all of it or most of it).

• The higher usage rate amongst kit recipients when compared tovoucher recipients may be due to some anticipated positivepredisposition to MRE (due to the nature of the sample).

➠ Did the voucher and / or kit have a positive impact on skills andknowledge?

Voucher• Although the majority of couples said their relationship did not change

as a result of attending an MRE activity (53%), there were somepositive outcomes in that almost two thirds (63%) said it hadimproved their communication skills.

• The vast majority said the activity was useful (90%), and there was ahigh degree of satisfaction with the content of the activities (86% -95% saying very or somewhat satisfied).

- 6 -


• In addition, when the couples who are using civil celebrants in thevoucher locations are compared to those in control locations, there issome indication that exposure to the voucher scheme in general isbringing about attitude change and thereby increasing the positivepre-disposition of couples to MRE.

Kit• Around three in ten (28%) of those who had used any part of the kit

thought it was very useful with more than a further half (55%) sayingit was fairly useful (83% combined). When calculated across theentire kit sample, over half (54%) who had been exposed to the kitsaid it was very or fairly useful to them.

• The vast majority of those who had used any item of the kit (78%)said they had learnt some new things and a further 12% said theyhad learnt a lot of new things from the kit. Of some promise is thefact that the degree of learning was highest amongst those withchildren living the home with 23% of these people saying they hadlearnt a lot of new things.

• Professed trial of positive behavioural techniques covered in the kitwas high, with between 75% and 92% of couples saying they hadtried each of the selected techniques.

➠ Are the voucher scheme and kit practical methods of providinginformation and skills in MRE?

Voucher• The voucher pilot delivered MRE to almost half of couples who were

exposed to the voucher (48%). This suggests that a similarproportion of marrying couples across the wider population wouldtake up the opportunity, if the voucher were more widely available.

• Despite the 'teething problems' encountered by celebrants andservice providers, utilising a voucher scheme to subsidise MRE canbe seen to be a practical way to provide information and skills aboutrelating, to couples. If FaCS can streamline its delivery mechanismssuch that the concerns of service providers are alleviated, then thewider adoption of the voucher scheme will probably be acceptable tothem.

Kit• The kit delivered MRE to almost two thirds of those who were

exposed to it (65%), and it is assumed that a similar level of adoptionand use would occur, if delivery mechanisms were to remainunchanged and a similar recipient sample profile were to continue tobe attained.

- 7 -


➠ What are the demographic characteristics of voucher or kit recipients,relative to those who are eligible but who do not use the activities?

Voucher• For the voucher, the greatest predictor of whether a couple will use

the voucher is whether their celebrant is civil or religious, with only9% of current users using a civil celebrant (and 91% of those usinga religious celebrant).

• Somewhat related is the degree of religiosity, with the greatestproportion of non-users having no religious involvement (62%).

Kit• Unlike the voucher group, type of celebrant and degree of religious

involvement have little impact on use of the kit.

• The only demographic difference evident for kit users versus non-users is the increased likelihood of the user to be aged 35+ (28% ofusers were aged 35+ whereas only 12% of non-users were).

• On the overall variable of the presence of children after marriagethere was no difference between the sub-groups. However, analysisof the questions about children from previous relationships and jointchildren suggests that there is a greater proportion of couples in thekit sample in general, who are in step and / or blended families.

➠ What attitudinal factors impact on the choice to participate?

Voucher• Not surprisingly, there is a greater proportion of voucher couples who

thought MRE was very or fairly relevant and / or very or fairlyimportant in the users group, than there was amongst non-users.Hence, those who thought that MRE was important and relevant tothem were more likely to use the voucher.

• The barriers with most salience for those who haven't used and don'tintend to use the voucher are you can only learn relationship skillsthrough experience (with 76% saying they think this a little or a lot);and you don't need it you can sort things out yourself (with 62%saying they think this a little or a lot).

Kit• There appear to be no notable differences in attitudes between kit

users and non-users. Contrary to what could be expected based onthe voucher results, there is not even a significant increase in beliefthat MRE is relevant amongst users.

- 8 -


• There is however, a slightly greater tendency to use the kit if therelationship has been going for less than 3 years (44% versus 31% ofnon-users) and vice versa.

2.1. Recommendations for future delivery of MRE services

Outlined below are specific implementation strategies to address issues identifiedin the research.

ISSUE STRATEGY

Couples tend to associaterelationship educationwith problem resolution,and consider that sincethey don't have aproblem, they don't neededucation.

➨ Consider trying to encourage the shifting ofthe delivery of secular services to the 'adulteducation' service sector rather than theso-called 'welfare' sector. Some secularproviders may be encouraged to deliversuitable activities at TAFE colleges and thelike.

Religious celebrantsalready have structures inplace to enable voucherreferrals to affiliatedservice providers.

➨ Mimic this structure by encouraging liaisonand affiliation between civil celebrants andsecular service providers.

Some celebrants in thevoucher pilot who alsooffer educational servicesare not funded for thoseservices.

➨ As an alternative to altering fundingarrangements, consider strategies forstandardising MRE content across thesepeople, perhaps by providing them withmultiple copies of the kit for use in theireducational programs.

The target group for thevoucher is currently thosewho are marrying, yet atthe time of marriage,couples are still starry-eyed about the prospectof relationship success,and are not comfortableacknowledging thepossibility of troublelooming.

➨ Consider attaching the uptake of relatingskills to other life events, such as the birthof the first child. It is acceptable andeven expected that the addition of a childwill cause changes in a relationship.

- 9 -


ISSUE STRATEGY

Couples with the greatestpropensity to undertakeMRE are those with apositive pre-dispositionto it.

➨

➨

➨

Increase the likelihood of couples toconsider MRE in a favourable light. Thiscan be done by promoting the benefits ofMRE and by encouraging couples toconsider MRE as normal thing to do.The research indicates that there may bean increased propensity for positive pre-disposition in the voucher locations (dueto exposure to the pilot), hencecontinuing and / or extending the voucherscheme will itself effect positive change.

Consider the adoption of a long-termeducation campaign to address the issueof 'normalising' MRE. If couples cometo consider that it is expected thateveryone undertakes such activities, it willthen be seen as a natural thing to do andcouples would then regard it as just onemore step in the business of gettingmarried. It may then come to beregarded by couples as a sign ofcommitment to the longevity of therelationship. In this way, couples who areplanning to spend the rest of their livestogether may be more likely to take thestep in order to try to ensure that thiseventuates.

By providing more information about whatgoes on in an MRE course andhighlighting that participants are notforced to divulge personal information,higher participation in MRE might beencouraged. Also, promotion of the ideathat while life experience is important inhelping one solve relationship problems,learning additional skills(communications, conflict resolution etc)may help to avoid some of the particularlypainful relationship lessons, could alsoincrease uptake of MRE.

- 10 -


ISSUE STRATEGY

While distributing the kitsat bridal fairs / expos andother show venues mightseem to effective, thelevel of non-use for kitsdistributed this wayindicates that it may notnecessarily be the mostefficient way. Those whoare most likely to go on tosubsequently use the kitare apparently willing togo to some effort to getone.

➨

➨

➨

By providing ample information about theavailability of the kit and making it readilyaccessible once the request has beenmade may be a more efficient way ofproviding the kit to couples with a greatermotivation to use it.

Hence, changes to the deliverymechanism (ie such as advertising theavailability of the kit instead of handing itout in various locations), would increasethe need for action on the part of thepotential MRE candidate. This may resultin cost savings in that only those who arereally determined to get it (positivelypredisposed), will do so.

However, this strategy will clearly not getthe kits to those who most need them,since they are least likely to be positivelypredisposed to MRE. Thereforestrategies to get the kits to a more needytarget group (such as distribution atCentrelink offices or State HousingAuthorities) will need to be devised, if thatis deemed to be a more desirableobjective.

Some civil celebrantssaid they had difficultyintroducing the topic ofMRE to couples.

➨ The use of some broad-based publicitywas seen by celebrants to be positive asit made the couples aware of the schemeand gave celebrants the ability toleverage onto that as a way of introducingthe topic.

Some civil celebrantssaid they had difficultytalking about MRE tocouples.

➨

➨

Increasing the knowledge of celebrantsabout the various MRE activities that areavailable should result in thedissemination of more accurate andconstructive information to couples.

Subsidising civil celebrants to themselvesattend such MRE activities as are offeredto couples via the voucher and / ormaking it mandatory for them to attend inorder to practice might also be effectivein this regard.

- 11 -


PART ONE: VOUCHER EVALUATION

- 12 -


3 SUMMARY OF RESEARCH FINDINGS – VOUCHEREVALUATION

3.1. Exposure and Disposition to the voucher

• Overall, the vast majority of vouchers were distributed via celebrants (93%)with 7% being obtained via the Hotline.

• In the first wave of research, all except one of the respondents in thesurvey had obtained their voucher from their marriage celebrant. In Wave2 however, this increased to 13% obtaining the voucher via the Hotline[n=24].

• The vast majority of couples said the scheme was described in the fullestway when the celebrant offered the voucher (76%).

− Those being married by a religious celebrant were more likely thanthose being married by a civil celebrant to say they received the fullestexplanation (82% versus 63% respectively).

− Those with any professed degree of involvement in their churchwere also more likely to say their celebrant had described the voucherin full (84% versus 69% of those with no religious involvement).

• Those who had rejected the voucher, were significantly less likely thanthose who showed some intent or had actually used the voucher to say thecelebrant described the voucher in full (64% of those who rejected, versus90% of those who would have done something even without the voucher).

• Of those who were offered the voucher by the celebrant, 94% accepted itat this point (ie only 6% rejected it outright).

• Those who accepted were more likely to be:

− using a religious marriage celebrant (99% versus 84% of thoseusing a civil celebrant).

− tertiary educated (98% versus 90% of those who have up to andincluding secondary education).

• Those who rejected the voucher were more likely to:

− Believe that MRE was not very or not at all important (19% versus3% of those who thought that MRE was very or fairly important).

− Live in Launceston (14% versus 4% of those in Perth);− Have children living with them (14% versus 4% of those with no

children).

- 13 -


3.2. Use of the voucher

3.2.1. Redemption levels• Of those who accepted the voucher, 51% said they had already used it.

There was a significant increase in the usage from Wave 1 to Wave 2(45% up to 58% respectively). Those who had used it were more likely tobe:

− Involved in their church (62% for low / moderate involvement and70% for high involvement versus 36% with no religious involvement).

− Being married by a religious celebrant (62% versus 19% of thoseusing a civil celebrant)

− Tertiary educated (61% versus 53% of those with post / secondary ortechnical education and 42% of those with up to secondary education).

Summary

Of the n=185 people who redeemed the voucher:

• 91% were using a religious marriage celebrant;

• 89% have no children living with them;

• 85% believed that MRE is very or fairly relevant;

• 65% said they had some level of involvement with their church;

• 57% have lived together for 3 or more years;

• 49% were tertiary educated (whereas 29% were educated up to secondarylevel and 22% had some / completed technical education); and

• 39% would have had to do something before the celebrant would marrythem (whereas 33% would have gone to something even without thevoucher; and 28% would have done nothing without the voucher).

- 14 -


3.2.2. Intended use• Of those who had accepted the voucher but had not yet used it, 57% said

they did intend to use it. In Wave 1 50% said this, and the level ofprofessed intention increased significantly in Wave 2 to 66%.

− Again, religiosity is the major influencing factor in terms of intention,with this attribute lifting the proposed level of intention to between 80%and 100% amongst these respondents (compared to 40% of thosewith no involvement).

3.2.3. Where used / intend to use voucher• Overall, the Catholic services are the major point at which vouchers are

redeemed (52% of total vouchers actually or intended to be redeemed).The next largest redemption points are Anglican services (with 16% of thetotal), and Relationships Australia (with 15% of the total)

− In Launceston couples were more likely to use Anglican services(46%) than a Catholic service (31%). Only 7% of respondents inLaunceston used Relationships Australia.

− In Perth couples were much more likely to be using Catholic Services(53%), with a further 15% using Relationships Australia and 13% usingAnglican services.

3.2.4. Type of activity voucher used for• Almost four in ten participants (38%) said they had or would undertake an

inventory style activity.

− Inventory style courses have a greater likelihood of being undertakenby those who would have done something even without thevoucher (46%); those in blue collar occupations (42%); those withsome degree of church participation (41%) and those being marriedby a religious celebrant (41%).

• A third (34%) said they had or would undertake a group course of two ormore sessions.

− Group courses have a greater likelihood of being undertaken by thosewho obtained the voucher via the Hotline (52%) and those beingmarried by civil celebrants (47%).

- 15 -


3.2.5. Attendance at alternate MRE activities• Three in ten of those who accepted the voucher (29%) said they would

have had to attend something before their celebrant would conduct theceremony.

− Levels were highest amongst those being married by a religiouscelebrant (36% versus 7% of those being married by a civil celebrant).

• Just over a further quarter (27%) said that they would have attendedsomething else anyway, regardless of the existence of the voucher.

− Levels were highest amongst those with some church involvement(36%).

• Forty percent said they would not have attended any other form of MREactivity without the voucher.

− Levels were highest amongst those being married by a civil celebrant(77%), and amongst those with no involvement in a church (56%).

• Of those who would have attended some form of MRE activity anyway(either voluntarily or compulsorily), around half (47%) said they would haveattended an activity conducted by their celebrant or local church.

• One in six (16%) said they intend to go to some other MRE activity.

− Those who had already used the voucher were more likely than thosewho either rejected or have not yet used the voucher to say they wouldattend a further activity (22%).

Summary

Across the total sample:

• 23% said they had not used the voucher and would have done nothinganyway;

• 25% said they had already used or intended to use the voucher butwould have done nothing otherwise;

• 25% would have gone to something anyway, regardless of thevoucher; and

• 27% said they would have had to go to something before theircelebrant would marry them.

- 16 -


3.3. MRE activities undertaken using the voucher

3.3.1. Status of activity undertaken• The vast majority of those who had used the voucher (89%) had completed

the activity they had undertaken. This translates to 43% of all respondentssurveyed.

3.3.2. Effect on relationship of undertaking activity• Just over half of those who had used the voucher (53%) said their

relationship had stayed the same.

• Forty four percent said their relationship had improved. The major reasongiven for the improvement of the relationship was improved communicationskills (64%), followed by helped us understand each other (23%).

3.3.3. Aspects of attendance• There were very few commenting negatively about the venue or times the

activities were conducted (4% - 7%).

3.3.4. Satisfaction with course content• The vast majority of respondents were either very or somewhat satisfied

with various aspects of the course:

− The roles of men and women presented (95%).

− Ideas about relationships presented (91%).

− Quality of educators running the program (91%).

− Skills for communicating with partner (86%).

− New skills for conflict resolution (86%).

- 17 -


3.3.5. Personal effects of participation in MRE• The majority of respondents agree, either strongly or slightly, with each of

the statements presented :

− Feel that now have more skills to enhance relationship (88%).

− Confidence that the learning will be of lasting value (87%).

− More likely to recognise serious relationship difficulties (85%).

− More likely to seek professional help to deal with issues (83%).

− Have learnt some things about relating that didn't know before (71%).

− Had the opportunity to put into practice things learnt in the course(67%).

3.3.6. Usefulness of activity• Overall 90% of those who had attended an activity with the voucher said

they thought the activity was either very or fairly useful to them.

• The vast majority (96%) said that they would recommend the activity tosomeone else, an endorsement of MRE in general.

3.4. Attitudes towards marriage and relationship education

3.4.1. Importance of MRE• In total 87% of participants said they thought that marriage and relationship

education was very or fairly important in achieving a successfulrelationship.

− Perceptions of importance increase with the degree of religiosity.

3.4.2. Relevance of MRE• Three in ten (30%) of participants said they thought that marriage and

relationship education was not very or not at all relevant to them.

• Significantly fewer people than thought MRE important in achieving asuccessful relationship, thought it was actually relevant to them (87% veryimportant or fairly important versus 69% very relevant or fairly relevant,respectively).

− Again the degree of religious involvement is influential in theperception of the relevance of MRE.

- 18 -


3.4.3. Main aim of MRE• Half of respondents (52%) focussed on either the solution or prevention of

problems:

− Almost three in ten (28%) said it would help to prevent major problems

− A quarter of participants (24%) nominated helping to solve problems

• A further three in ten (29%) said MRE should help people get more out oftheir relationship.

3.4.4. Perceived barriers to participating in MRE• The level of agreement with certain statements indicates that there are

substantial barriers to MRE. Those with particular salience are:

− Can only learn skills through experience (70% 'a little' or 'a lot')− Don't like to discuss personal issues in front of others (59% 'a little' or

'a lot')− Don't know enough about MRE (50% % 'a little' or 'a lot')

• Of some importance to the voucher scheme is the confirmation that thevast majority of people do not see the cost as a major barrier to MRE, with16% saying the sessions cost too much.

• Very few people say they are worried about what other people might thinkif they find out they are attending MRE (95% saying no, not at all to thisstatement). This is also the case for the sessions are mainly for coupleswith problems (86%).

• There is a reduced level of salience for many of the barriers if therespondent has already used the voucher, and even if they intend to usethe voucher. This reinforces the idea that those who rejected the voucherhold the most negative views. However once respondents have used thevoucher they are in general, more inclined to deny the barrier, thus we seethat the tendency to say no, not at all increases.

3.5. Comparison between clients of civil celebrants in voucherand control locations

• There is some indication that exposure to the voucher scheme may bepositively affecting attitudes towards MRE, with civils' voucher clientstending to think MRE is more important than their counterparts in thecontrol locations. Voucher clients also have a decreased propensity to saythat the sessions are for couples with major problems and that theydon't know enough about MRE.

- 19 -


4 RESEARCH METHOD

4.1. Overall Method

The methodology for the evaluation of the voucher pilot was based on theexistence of a control group. The control group was required to provide abenchmark against which attitude variations in the pilot couples could bemeasured, both in relation to the use of MRE activities as well as more broadly, toattitudes towards the principles, benefits and barriers to relationship education.Hence the project targeted two separate groups:• Couples in the pilot locations (Launceston and Perth) who had access to

the voucher, and who had either accepted ("accepters") or rejected("rejecters") it, and

• Couples in control locations (Adelaide and Hobart) who had not hadaccess to the voucher scheme.

Initially it was planned to conduct three waves of research in the pilot locations,however, this proved to be impractical due to the restricted quantity of sample.Thus, the evaluation comprises two waves of data only.

Interviews for the various components of the research project were conductedover the periods shown.

PPiilloott llooccaattiioonnss CCoonnttrrooll llooccaattiioonnss

Wave 1 19 May to 26 May 2000 21 June and 29 June 2000

Wave 2 29th August and 5th September 2000 NA

In the second wave of research, only couples in the pilot locations who wereexposed to the voucher scheme were surveyed, ie there were no additionalparticipants from the control locations.

The fieldwork for the voucher component of the research was conducted via CATI(Computer Aided Telephone Interviewing) by AC Nielsen.

- 20 -


4.2. Sample collection

Pilot locationsDue to an inability to use existing data collection avenues for obtaining contacts,the names of couples who were eligible to take part in the research were collectedby FaCS, via a protocol set up through those celebrants who had volunteered totake part in the voucher scheme. Participating marriage celebrants were thereforeprovided with multiple copies of a custom-designed form that they could then getthe couple who were applying to marry, to complete. The forms were thenforwarded to FaCS where they were input into a purpose-designed Accessdatabase. The couple's details from the database were subsequently forwarded toNFO Donovan Research for the purpose of conducting the pilot survey.

Control locationsData collection in the control locations proved to be much more difficult, due to thedelay in setting up the protocol for collecting couple's details. Hence, this part ofthe research process could not be commenced until the data collectionmethodology was developed and implemented, thus necessitating thepostponement of the control location research. NFO Donovan Research thereforeundertook to assist in the process of collecting the names of eligible couples, bylocating celebrants in Hobart and Adelaide who would consent to take part.

Celebrants were selected to match the denomination or type of those who hadvolunteered to take part in the voucher scheme. NFO Donovan Researchcontacted each celebrant personally, and an attempt was made to enlist theirsupport for the evaluation project. Those celebrants who thereafter consentedwere provided with forms similar to those in use in the pilot locations and asked toreturn them when completed, to FaCS.

Celebrants were asked to submit the contact details both for couples who plannedto marry in the near future as well as those who had recently married. Eachcouple's details were then input into an Excel spreadsheet by FaCS and providedto NFO Donovan Research to enable the interviews to be conducted.

The delay and subsequent difficulties that were encountered in enlisting support,resulted in a smaller than desired total eligible pool of eligible couples from whichcontacts could be made, and hence a reduced total control sample. In addition,some of the celebrants approached, even though they had agreed in principle, didnot actually submit any couples details, contributing to further imbalance in thesample.

- 21 -


The resulting database of couple contacts therefore did not match that of the pilotlocations in many respects (as can be seen from Table 4.6). Due to discrepanciesin several key areas (eg gender, celebrant type) it was deemed impractical tomatch the data to the pilot location to correct the imbalance, as this would havedistorted the data.

Some consideration was given to trying to correct the imbalance manually byobtaining further sample from religious celebrants and conducting an additionalsurvey amongst these couples, however, there was insufficient time and resourcesavailable to do so. Data for the control group are therefore not presented in thisreport, except for comparisons amongst couples from each group who are usingcivil celebrants, as noted in section 4.8.

4.3. Sampling Procedure

PPiilloottllooccaattiioonnss --WWaavvee 11

For the first wave of research, respondents were selected at random from coupleswhose contact details were provided. A gender quota was applied in order toachieve equal numbers of males and females.

In the voucher pilot locations, a total of N=202 interviews was achieved in the firstwave.

The average interview duration for the Wave 1 interviews was 15.6 minutes.

PPiilloottllooccaattiioonnss --WWaavvee 22

For the second wave of interviewing, all remaining available contact telephonenumbers were used in an attempt to obtain the desired number of interviews. It isbelieved that the lack of available sample is due to the lower than expectednumber of vouchers that have been distributed by participating marriagecelebrants.

This resulted in several anomalies in the sample:• Insufficient interviews were able to obtained in Launceston; and• Insufficient interviews were obtained with men.

- 22 -


Notably, there was insufficient sample to complete the proposed third wave ofinterviewing.

The average interview duration for Wave 2 interviews was 15.4 minutes.

- 23 -


CCoonnttrroollllooccaattiioonnss

Due to the limited number of contacts in the control locations, the fieldworksupplier was instructed to obtain as many interviews as possible from the sampleprovided.

A gender quota was not applied in the control locations due to the limitedavailability of eligible sample.

A total of n=85 interviews was achieved in the control locations. The averageinterview duration for the control locations was 9.38 minutes.

4.4. Questionnaires

The questionnaire for the voucher pilot survey was developed by NFO DonovanResearch in consultation with FaCS. This questionnaire combines elements ofquestionnaires used previously, in order to maximise comparability with existingdata and includes some customised questions to measure exposure and reactionto the voucher scheme. A copy of this questionnaire is included at the end of thisreport. The questionnaire was not altered for Wave 2.

The control survey questionnaire is a cut-down version of the pilot locationquestionnaire, with aspects of exposure and reaction to the voucher schemeremoved. A copy of this questionnaire is included at the end of this report.

- 24 -


4.5. Field Statistics

Field statistics for each of the pilot and control locations are shown in Table 4.5.

Table 4.5 Field statisticsFFiieelldd ssttaattiissttiiccss

PPiilloott llooccaattiioonn

WWaavvee 11 WWaavvee 22

CCoonnttrrooll

llooccaattiioonn

Total dialled numbers 1077 1435 460No contact made 340 482 132Contacts 737 953 328Answering machines 218 319 105Calls back 229 329 89Refusals & terminations 48 74 34Not available for duration 17 5 5Exclusions:

No recall of voucher 8 4 -Business number 1 12 3Unable to trace 7 19 7Quota full – male/female 5 8 -Not about to marry 2 3 -

Interviews completed 202 180 85

In order to achieve one live interview, 3.64 contacts were made for the Wave 1pilot group, 5.29 for the Wave 2 pilot group, and 3.85 for the control group.

In the first wave of interviewing, 6% of the total number contacted in the pilotlocations refused to participate in the survey. This rose to 8% in Wave 2. In thecontrol locations, the refusal rate was 10%.

- 25 -


4.6. Demographics

The sample demographics for both the waves of the pilot surveys and the controlsurvey are summarised in Table 4.6 opposite and overleaf.

In addition to the demographic questions asked of all respondents, thoserespondents who said they were religious or who were being married by a religiouscelebrant were asked about their degree of religiosity. These data are shown inTable 4.6, recalculated across the total sample.

Notably, 31% of the couples who are being married by a religious celebrant do notdescribe themselves as religious.

As discussed in the draft report for Wave 1, there are issues relating torepresentativeness with the control group which mean that the results for thevoucher pilot locations were not comparable to the control data. Hence controlgroup data are not reported herein, except as noted in section 4.8 whichcomments on analyses using only those couples who were contacting civilcelebrants.

As can be seen from the table, the samples for the two pilot survey groups vary onthe following aspects:

• Location;• Marital status;• Religious denomination; and• Gender

Each is discussed in turn:

LLooccaattiioonn

Insufficient couple contacts were available in general, but this was a particularissue in Launceston and resulted in a reduced total sample of n=180. It is notexpected that this will have a major effect on the results overall.

MMaarriittaallssttaattuuss

As can be seen a greater proportion of Wave 1 couples had recently beenmarried. This is not unexpected given that the voucher is given out by thecelebrant at the first available contact with couples. In the first wave of the

- 26 -


research, it is to be expected that the primary source of couples would be thosemaking final contact prior to the wedding.

- 27 -


RReelliiggiioouussddeennoommiinnaattiioonn

There is also an imbalance in the sample in relation to professed religion of thecouple. In Wave 2 for example, there is a statistically significant increase in thenumber of Catholic couples. This increase is primarily a result of activity in Perth,and will be discussed in more detail in the body of the report. The uptake ofcouples in terms of religious background is subject to environmental factors. Thedata are therefore not weighted to compensate for this anomaly.

GGeennddeerr

For wave two interviewing the fieldwork provider was instructed to obtain as manyinterviews as possible from the limited sample available, within the costparameters of the project. Thus the resulting sample is skewed to include morefemales than males. This is to be expected, all things being equal (men areharder to get to participate). As a consequence of this imbalance, however, therewere some variations in results. For this reason, the data were weighted tocorrespond to the quotaed sample profile vis a vis gender for the Wave 1 survey(ie 50% male; 50% female).

4.7. Data weighting

As discussed in the previous section, data were weighted to correct an imbalancein the number of males interviewed. The weightings applied were as shown inTable 4.7.

Table 4.7 Data weights

nn iinnWWaavvee 22ssaammppllee

%% iinnWWaavvee 22ssaammppllee

%% iinnWWaavvee 11ssaammppllee

WWeeiigghhttiinngg ffaaccttoorr

Total 180 100%Male 70 39% 50% 1.2857Female 110 61% 50% .8181

- 28 -


4.8. Data analysis

Summary of voucher interactions

A summary of the sample at each point in the voucher receipt / redemptionprocess is shown in Table 4.8a opposite.

Disposition towards the voucher

Participants were divided into four distinct groups with regard to dispositiontowards the voucher:

• Those who had not used the voucher and would not do anything anyway;

• Those who had already used or intended to use the voucher but would havedone nothing otherwise;

• Those who would have gone to something even without the voucher; and

• Those who would have had to go to something before their celebrant wouldmarry them.

A summary of voucher interactions is shown by these sub-groups in Table 4.8bbelow.

Table 4.8b Summary of voucher interactions, by intention to use

VVoouucchheerr iinntteerraaccttiioonnss

TOTAL

NNoottuusseedd &&wwoouullddhhaavveeddoonnee

nnootthhiinngg ((aa))

UUsseedd((iinntteenndd)) bbuuttnnoott

wwiitthhoouutt

vvoouucchheerr

((bb))

DDoonneessoommeetthhiinnggeevveenn

wwiitthhoouutt

vvoouucchheerr

((cc))

HHaadd ttooddoo

ssoommeetthhiinngg((dd))

BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS 382 81 97 98 106n n n n n

Offered by celebrant 357 81 90 89 97Hotline 25 - 7 9 9Accepted from celebrant 337 63 90 88 96Refused 20 18 - 1 1Used 185 - 51* 61* 73*Not used 177 63 47* 36* 31*

Intend to use 101 - 47 27 27Do not intend to use 58 51 - 5 2Don't know 18 12 - 4 2

1 n=337 accepted plus n=25 from Hotline * Does not add to total at top of column due to roundingof weighted data

n=3621

- 29 -


Where relevant throughout the text of this report, the results are analysed by thesesub-groups.

- 30 -


Use of the control groupSince the control group data in its entirety was inadequate for general comparisonto the pilot sample (due to the problems outlined in section 4.2), it was usedinstead for a comparison of couples using civil celebrants in the control group,versus those in the pilot locations.

The rationale for conducting this exercise was that couples using civil celebrantsare not using the voucher to the extent desired and further information about theircharacteristics and attitudes would therefore be advantageous to the evaluationproject overall.

In order to conduct this analysis, the data were re-run. To compensate for thegender imbalance in the control group (already discussed) the data were weightedby gender and then filtered to exclude all those being married by a religiouscelebrant. This enables direct comparison between (civil) couples in the voucherpilot locations and those in the control locations.

Comment is made in the text about these couples in relation to attitudes to MRE.

Because the original methodology was based on the ability to measure the impacton couples in the voucher pilot locations to those in the control locations, there is arestricted ability to extrapolate more widely about the probable impact if thevoucher scheme were to be implemented nationally. However, this inability is alsocontributed to by environmental factors such as Catholic education providers incertain locations, heavily promoting the use of the vouchers.

However, comparisons between couples being married by civil celebrants shouldbe valid, as long as there was no hidden systematic bias in the contact provisionprocess (eg only celebrants of a certain type responded). The total attainedsample of couples being married by a civil celebrant in each location is as follows:

Voucher pilot locations Control locationsSample size n=107 n=64

It should be noted that due to the small size of the samples, the differencesrequired in order to be statistically significant are larger than they would ideally be.A comment about statistical significance follows.

Statistical significanceSampling error reflects the difference between an estimate derived from a surveyand the 'true value' that would be obtained if the whole target population wassurveyed.

- 31 -


Several factors can affect the size of the sampling error, the main one beingsample size. In general, larger samples give rise to smaller sampling error.

The larger the sample size, the greater confidence one can have that even smallpercentage changes in results (eg. From year-to-year) reflect 'real' changes.

Whenever sub-group comparisons are made, it is therefore important todistinguish between differences that are reliable (ie. statistically significant) andthose that are not (ie. could be due to chance sample fluctuations, or samplingerror). To assist in distinguishing between statistically reliable and unreliabledifferences the table below lists the size of the differences required to reachstatistical significance (again at the 95% confidence level with 1.35 design factor),for various small sample sizes.

Table 4.8c : Difference required to be significant when comparing twopercentages (95% confidence level, using design factor at 1.35)

Average Sample Size ofGroups Being Compared

Average of Two Percentages is . . .

10% or 90% 20% or 80% 40% or 60%50 16% 21% 26%75 13% 17% 21%100 11% 15% 18%200 8% 11% 13%

Example :- Say you are comparing the results from two sub-samples asfollows:

Result A : 23% agree strongly : n=64Result B : 17% agree strongly : n=107

The average of the two sample sizes is 86. The average of the two results is 20%.From the table above it can be seen that the difference needed to be statisticallysignificant is at least 17%. Therefore, you would be 95% confident that thedifference between the two results is statistically reliable.

- 32 -


5 EXPOSURE AND DISPOSITION TO THE VOUCHER

Respondents in the pilot locations were asked a series of questions about thevoucher in particular how it was offered to them and whether they had rejected oraccepted it.

5.1. Where voucher was obtained

Respondents were initially asked whether the voucher was offered to them by theircelebrant, or whether they had called the Hotline to obtain one. Results areshown in Table 5.1 for both waves of research.

Table 5.1 Where the voucher was obtained

Q7a. Did your marriage celebrant offer the voucher to you, or did you call theHotline to find out about the voucher scheme?

WWhheerree vvoouucchheerroobbttaaiinneedd

TTOOTTAALL WWaavvee 11 WWaavvee 22BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS 382 202 180

% % %Celebrant offered 93 100 ✩ 87

Called the Hotline 7 - ✩ 13

✩ Denotes a statistically significant difference at 0.05 confidence level when compared to Wave1 results

Over both waves of research, the vast majority of vouchers were distributed viacelebrants (93%).

In Wave 1 all participants except one said the voucher was offered to them bytheir celebrant. This was not the case in Wave 2 however, with 13% obtaining thevoucher via the Hotline. This was a significant increase over the level recorded inWave 1.

As many males as females called the Hotline for a voucher (13%).

This increase in representation of Hotliners is most likely the result of theadditional advertising that was undertaken.

Note for Wave 1 data: In Wave 1 one person did obtain a voucher via theHotline, but as they represented less than .05% does not appear in the table.

- 33 -


However, this causes the base size to later reduce to n=201 for questionsrelating to contact with celebrants.

- 34 -


5.2. How the voucher was offered

Those respondents who had gained access to the voucher via their celebrant wereasked to indicate the manner in which the celebrant had presented the voucher tothem. Results overall are shown in Table 5.2a.

Table 5.2a Manner in which the celebrant had offered the voucher

Q7b. Which of these statements best describes how the voucher was offered toyou?

HHooww vvoouucchheerrooffffeerreedd

TTOOTTAALL

WWaavvee11

WWaavvee22

BASE: THOSE WHO WERE OFFERED THEVOUCHER BY CELEBRANT 357 2011 156

% % %The celebrant explained the purpose of thevoucher scheme and the benefits of marriageeducation, then offered us the voucher

76 74 79

The celebrant told us a bit about the voucherscheme and then offered us the voucher

18 20 15

The celebrant offered us the voucher withoutsaying much about the scheme or the benefitsof marriage education

4 5 2

Don't know / can't remember 2 - 3

TOTAL 100 99* 99** Does not total 100% due to rounding.

The vast majority of respondents said that the celebrant had explained thepurpose of the voucher scheme and the benefits of marriage education, beforeoffering the voucher (76%). There was no difference between Launceston andPerth in terms of the level of explanation offered by celebrants - 75% ofLaunceston celebrants were said to have offered the fullest explanation versus77% of those in Perth.

By sub-group:

• Not unexpectedly, those who were using a religious marriage celebrantwere significantly more likely to say that the celebrant had described thevoucher to them in the fullest way (82% versus 63% of those being marriedby a civil marriage celebrant).

1 Note: Base size reduces to n=201 as one person obtained a voucher via the Hotline and these

questions relate to interaction with the celebrant.

- 35 -


• Those who had any degree of religious involvement were alsosignificantly more likely to say that the celebrant had described the voucherand its benefits in full (84% with any involvement versus 69% with noinvolvement).

• Of those who rejected the voucher outright, only half (50%) said thecelebrant had offered the fullest explanation2. Amongst those who initiallyaccepted and then rejected (ie did not intend to use) the voucher, 69%said the celebrant offered the fullest explanation. Overall 81% of those whoaccepted the voucher and have already used or intend to, said thecelebrant had offered the fullest explanation.

Amongst those who ultimately rejected the voucher therefore, fewer celebrantsare said to be offering the fullest explanation. Although this suggests that there isbenefit in having the celebrant committed to the benefits of MRE and in support ofthe principles of the voucher scheme, it is difficult to surmise to what degree thelevel of explanation offered by the celebrant affects the uptake rate of the voucher.It is probable that predisposition to MRE also affects the person's preparedness tohear the explanation given (ie those who thought MRE was not very or not at allrelevant are also less likely than those who believe MRE to be very or fairlyrelevant, to say they received the fullest explanation).

The results of this question, by disposition to the voucher, are shown in Table5.2b.

2 Note small base [n=20]

- 36 -


Table 5.2b Manner in which the celebrant had offered the voucher, bydisposition to the voucher

HHooww vvoouucchheerr ooffffeerreeddNNoott

uusseedd &&wwoouullddhhaavveeddoonnee



wwiitthhoouutt

vvoouucchheerr ((bb))

DDoonneessoommeetthhiinnggeevveenn

wwiitthhoouutt

vvoouucchheerr ((cc))

HHaadd ttooddoo


BASE: THOSE WHO WERE OFFERED THEVOUCHER BY CELEBRANT 81 90 89 97

% % % %The celebrant explained the purposeof the voucher scheme and thebenefits of marriage education, thenoffered us the voucher

bc 64 a 80 ad 90 c 71

The celebrant told us a bit about thevoucher scheme and then offered usthe voucher

27c 16 8ad c 22

The celebrant offered us the voucherwithout saying much about thescheme or the benefits of marriageeducation

bc 9 a 2 a 1 5

Don't know / can't remember 1 1 1 3

TOTAL 101* 99* 100 101** Does not add to 100% due to roundingabcd Indicates column against which significance at level 0.05 is reached

Hence, when one looks at couples' disposition to the voucher, those who have nointention of using the voucher, record the lowest proportion saying theircelebrant offered the fullest explanation (64%), followed by those who said theywould have had to do something (71%). This seems surprisingly low on firstconsideration, however, it may be that because couples are already expecting tobe told they need to do some form of MRE they do not need nor seek the fullestexplanation.

The group that reported the highest proportion receiving a full explanation aboutthe voucher by the celebrant, were those who said they would have probablydone something regardless of the existence of the voucher (90%). Thissuggests that those who are open to the idea of MRE and who were already(voluntarily) considering doing some form of MRE, are the most open to hearing,and perhaps even encourage the fullest explanation by celebrants. The next mostreceptive group are those who have already used the voucher (or intend to)and who would not have done anything without it (80%).

- 37 -


5.3. Acceptance of the voucher

Respondents were asked whether they had accepted or rejected the voucherwhen it was offered to them. Results are shown in Table 5.3a.

Table 5.3a Acceptance of the voucher

Q7c. Did you accept the voucher that was offered to you?

AAcccceeppttaannccee ooffvvoouucchheerr

TTOOTTAALL

WWaavvee11

WWaavvee22

BASE: THOSE WHO WERE OFFERED THEVOUCHER BY CELEBRANT 357 201 156

% % %Yes 94 93 96

No 6 7 4

Overall, the vast majority of respondents (94%) said they had accepted thevoucher when it was offered to them, with only 6% saying they had rejected itoutright. This did not vary significantly by wave.

Higher acceptance occurs amongst:• Those being married by a religious marriage celebrant who are

significantly more likely to have accepted the voucher than those beingmarried by a civil marriage celebrant (99% versus 84% acceptancerespectively over both waves of research).

• And those with tertiary education who were more likely to have acceptedthan those of the lowest educational grouping (up to secondary) (98%versus 90% respectively over both waves of research).

As well as amongst those mentioned above, higher rejection was also evident inthe following groups:• Not surprisingly, those who considered that MRE was not very or not at

all important were significantly more likely to reject the voucher than thosewho thought that MRE was very or fairly important (19% versus 3%respectively).

• There is some indication that the vouchers are being rejected more inLaunceston3 than they are in Perth (14% versus 4% rejecting respectivelyover both waves of research – almost significant).

3 Note small base n=44

- 38 -


• Those with children living with them were also significantly more likely toreject (14% versus 4% over both waves of research).

Those who rejected the voucher outright were asked to give the reason for this.This was an open-ended question so participants could nominate whateverreasons they wanted to. The results are shown in Table 5.3b. Note however, thatsince there have only been 20 people in total over both waves of research whosaid they had rejected the voucher, the table presents absolutes rather thanpercentages.

Table 5.3b Reasons for not accepting the voucher

Q7d. Why did you not accept the voucher?

RReeaassoonnss ddiiddnnoott aacccceepptt

TTOOTTAALLBASE: THOSE WHO REJECTED THE VOUCHER

OUTRIGHT

20

nIt's too hard to find time 6I don't think we need it 6We already have a strong relationship 2We have been together a long time 2We don’t have problems 2We talk to each other anyway 2We already have kids together 1We have done other courses 1

The reasons given for rejection of the voucher are a confirmation of those barriersto MRE that have already been identified in previous research.

Groups who were likely to mention barriers are:• Those who have no degree of religious participation (n=19 versus n=1

with low/moderate participation);

• Those being married by a civil marriage celebrant (n=17 versus n=3 forreligious celebrants);

• Those with up to secondary education (n=13 versus n=7 of those withpost-school education); and

• Those who have been together for three or more years (n=13 versusn=7 who have been together less than 3 years).

- 39 -


6 USE OF THE VOUCHER

Respondents in pilot locations were then asked some questions about their use orintended use of the voucher, including where they had redeemed or might redeemit and what sort of MRE activity they have already or would undertake in the future.

6.1. Professed redemption of the voucher

Respondents were first asked whether they had yet redeemed the voucher theyhad accepted. Results are shown in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1 Level of redemption of the voucher

Q8a. Have you used the voucher yet?

UUssaaggee ooff vvoouucchheerr

TTOOTTAALL WWaavvee 11 WWaavvee 22BASE: THOSE WHO ACCEPTED THE

VOUCHER

362 188+ 174++

% % %Yes 51 45 ✩ 58

No 49 55 ✩ 42+ n=187 via their celebrant plus one Hotline caller++ n=150 via their celebrant plus n=24 Hotline callers


Around half of those who accepted the voucher say they have now used it (51%).There was a statistically significant increase in the level of redemption from Wave1 to Wave 2, with 58% of Wave 2 respondents now saying they have redeemedthe voucher. This is not unexpected since couples have now had a longer periodof time to take some action towards redemption.

This translates to 48% of the total survey sample (ie all those who haveparticipated in the research as opposed to only those who accepted thevoucher). For Wave 1 this figure was 42%, and for Wave 2 it was 56%, asignificant increase.

Highest redemption rates occur amongst:• Those with some degree of religious participation (low or moderate

involvement = 62%; high involvement = 70%; no involvement 36%)

- 40 -


• Those being married by a religious celebrant (62% versus 19% of thoseusing a civil celebrant);

• Those with tertiary education (61% versus 53% of those with postsecondary / technical education and 42% of those with up to secondaryeducation);

• Those in Perth (53% versus 32% of those in Launceston); and

• Those aged under 35 years (52% versus 43% of those aged 35+).

Note: the redemption rate amongst those who have used or intend to use thevoucher (but would have done nothing otherwise) increased significantlyamongst Wave 2 respondents compared to Wave 1 (63% versus 34%respectively). This suggests that voucher uptake amongst this group is gainingmomentum, however, it is too early to tell whether this is a continuing trend.

Hence, of the n=185 people who say they have now used the voucher:

• 91% were using a religious marriage celebrant;

• 89% have no children living with them;

• 85% believed that MRE is very or fairly relevant;

• 65% said they had some level of involvement with their church;

• 57% have lived together for 3 or more years;

• 49% were tertiary educated (whereas 29% were educated up to secondarylevel and 22% had some / completed technical education); and

• 39% would have had to do something before the celebrant would marrythem (whereas 33% would have gone to something even without the voucher;and 28% would have done nothing without the voucher).

6.2. Intended use

Those who had accepted the voucher from the celebrant but had not used it at thetime of the interview were asked whether they intended to use it. Their responsesare shown in Table 6.2.

- 41 -


Table 6.2 Intended use

Q8b. Do you intend to use the voucher?

IInntteennttiioonn ttoo uusseevvoouucchheerr

TTOOTTAALL WWaavvee 11 WWaavvee 22BASE: THOSE WHO ACCEPTED THEVOUCHER BUT HAVE NOT USED IT 177 104 73

% % %Yes 57 50 ✩ 66

No 33 38 25

Don’t know 10 12 8


In Wave 2 there has been a significant increase in the proportion saying theyintend to use the voucher when compared to Wave 1 (66% versus 50%respectively).

Hence, just over half of the accepters who have not yet used the voucher (57%)say that they do intend to use it. Of the remainder, 10% say they do not knowwhether they will use the voucher or not, and a third (33%) say they do not intendto use it.

As is consistent with those who had already used the voucher, intendedredemption levels were highest amongst:• Those with some degree of religious participation (low or moderate

involvement = 80%; high involvement = 100%; and 40% amongst thosewith no involvement);

• Those who were using a religious marriage celebrant (80% versus 23%of those being married by a civil celebrant);

• Those who believe that MRE is very or fairly relevant (73% versus notvery or not at all relevant = 31%);

• Those aged 18 – 34 (61% versus 34% of those aged 35+);

• Those who will have no children living with them after marriage (60%versus 41% with children); and

• Those residing in Perth (59% versus 46% of those residing inLaunceston).

- 42 -


6.3. Reasons for non-use

Those who said they had no intention to use the voucher were asked to indicatethe reason why. This was an open-ended question so participants could nominatewhatever reasons they wanted to. Responses are shown in Table 6.3.

Table 6.3 Reasons for not intending to use the voucher

Q8c. Why do you not intend to use the voucher?

RReeaassoonnssddiidd nnoottaacccceepptt

TTOOTTAALLBASE: THOSE WHO DO NOT INTEND TO USE THE

VOUCHER

58

%I don't think we need it 18It's too hard to find time 14Voucher expired 14We have already done other courses 12We already have a strong relationship 12We don’t have problems 11Have been together a long time already 10Already been married / have experience 7Not interested 7Not comfortable-embarrassed doing such things 6We talk to each other anyway 5

The major reason given by participants was that they didn't need it (18%). Menwere most likely to mention this reason (25% versus 12% of women) whereaswomen were significantly more likely to say it's hard to find time than were men(22% versus 4% respectively).

Base sample sizes are too small to identify other particular sub-groups who werenominating each reason.

6.4. Where used / intend to use voucher

Those who had already used or intend to use the voucher were asked to indicateat which agency they had or would use the voucher, or, when they said they didnot know whether they would use the voucher, where they thought they were likely

- 43 -


to use the voucher if they did eventually redeem it. Results are shown in Table6.4a.

- 44 -


Table 6.4a Agency at which voucher was (is intended to be) used

Q8d. At which agency did you use / do you intend to use / are you likely to usethe voucher?

WWhheerree vvoouucchheerr((wwiillll bbee)) uusseedd

TTOOTTAALL

WWaavvee11

WWaavvee22

BASE: ACCEPTERS WHO HAVE USED, INTENDTO USE OR DON'T KNOW WHETHER THEY WILLUSE THE VOUCHER

304 148 156

% % %Catholic Marriage Education Services 48 41 ✩ 54

Catholic Service 2 3 1

CentreCare / Centacare 2 3 1

Total Catholic 52 47 56

Anglicare / Kinway 14 19 ✩ 10

Anglican Service 2 2 2

Total Anglican 16 21 ✩ 12

Relationships Australia 15 15 14

General Christian Service - 1 -

Wesley Mission 1 - 1

Non-religious service 1 1 1

One recommended or run by our celebrant - 1 -

Other Religious course - 1 -

Other civil (Getting it Together / People inHarmony / MARTAS)

1 2 1

Other - 1 -


TOTAL 100 102* 100


* Does not total 100% due to rounding.

Overall, the Catholic services are the major point at which the vouchers are beingredeemed, with around half of voucher redeemers (52%) nominating them (48% ofwhom nominated the Catholic Marriage Education Services). Notably, there hasbeen a statistically significant increase in the number of redemptions (and possibleredemptions) at the Catholic Marriage Education Services, and this isaccompanied by a comparable reduction in the number of redemptions at Anglicanservice providers.

- 45 -


The next largest redemption centres are Relationships Australia and the AnglicanServices with 15% and 16% respectively saying they have or will redeem theirvouchers at these centres. The proportion of vouchers redeemed at RelationshipsAustralia has not changed since the Wave 1 research.

A substantial proportion of the sample do not know where they have or will redeemtheir voucher (15%), which is not surprising given the low level of knowledge thatmany couples appear to have about MRE, as discovered in the qualitativeresearch.

Results are shown in Table 6.4b for each agency by location.

Table 6.4b Agency at which voucher was (is intended to be) used, bylocation

Q8d. At which agency did you use / do you intend to use / are you likely to usethe voucher?

WWhheerree vvoouucchheerr((wwiillll bbee)) uusseedd

TTOOTTAALL LLaauunncceessttoonn

PPeerrtthh

BASE: ACCEPTERS WHO HAVE USED,INTEND TO USE OR DON'T KNOW WHETHERTHEY WILL USE THE VOUCHER

304 28+ 275

% % %Catholic Marriage Education Services 48 3 ✩ 53

Catholic Service 2 14 -

CentreCare / Centacare 2 14 -

Total Catholic 52 31 ✩ 53

Anglicare / Kinway 14 46 ✩ 11

Anglican Service 2 - 2

Total Anglican 16 46 ✩ 13

Relationships Australia 15 7 15

General Christian Service - - -

Wesley Mission 1 - 1

Non-religious service 1 - 1

One recommended or run by ourcelebrant

- - -

Other Religious course - - -

Other civil (Getting it Together / Peoplein Harmony / MARTAS)

1 4 1

Other - - -

- 46 -



TOTAL 100 99* 98*+ Note small base✩ Denotes a statistically significant difference at 0.05 confidence level when compared to

Launceston's results* Does not total 100% due to rounding.

It is evident from this table that the changes seen have occurred mainly in Perth.Thus, based on anecdotal information received, the probable cause is theadoption of some vigorous recruiting procedures by the Catholic service provider,which remains the major service provider in this centre. The Anglican serviceproviders and the secular provider Relationships Australia have an almost equalsplit of the market (13% and 15% respectively).

In Launceston the majority of vouchers are being redeemed at Anglicare / Kinway(46%), with Centrecare / Centacare or a Catholic service being nominated by 31%.Only 7% of vouchers are being redeemed at Relationships Australia inLaunceston.

Other sub-groups:As could be expected, those being married by a civil marriage celebrant aremore likely to nominate Relationships Australia (49%) as their preferred agency,with a further 9% nominating Catholic and 4% nominating Anglican. Fifty ninepercent of those being married by a religious celebrant nominated the Catholicagencies.

Notably, of those saying they have no religious participation, 31% nominatedthe Catholic services with fewer nominating Relationships Australia (24%).

By age, the youngest group (18-24 yo) were the least likely to use RelationshipsAustralia (12%) and the oldest group (35+ yo) were the most likely (20%).

A quarter of those who have used (or intend to use) the voucher and would nothave done anything otherwise said they used or would use RelationshipsAustralia (25%), however, a greater proportion nominated a Catholic service(37%).

There were minimal differences by other sub-groups.

- 47 -


6.5. Type of activity on which voucher used

Those who had already used or said they intended to use the voucher were askedto indicate the type of activity they have already undertaken or would undertake.Each of the options was read out, with the exception of don't know or haven'tdecided. Note that those who did not know whether they would use the voucherare not included in this sample. Results are shown in Table 6.5a.

Table 6.5a Type of activity undertaken / to be undertaken

Q8e. What type of educational activity did you go to / do you intend to go to?

TTyyppee ooff aaccttiivviittyyvvoouucchheerr((ttoo bbee))

uusseedd ffoorr

TTOOTTAALL

WWaavvee11

WWaavvee22

BASE: ACCEPTERS WHO HAVE USED ORINTEND TO USE THE VOUCHER 285 136 149

% % %An inventory such as FOCCUS, FOCCUSPLUS or PREPARE

38 37 39

A group course of two or more sessions 34 31 37

Another type of course 13 14 11

Don’t know / haven’t decided 16 18 13

TOTAL 101* 100 100


Amongst the total sample, just over a third of participants (38%) said they had orwould undertake an inventory style activity, whereas a third (34%) said they had orwould undertake a group course of two or more sessions.

Little change occurred between waves.

Results are shown in Table 6.5b by location.

- 48 -


Table 6.5b Type of activity undertaken / to be undertaken, by location

Q8e. What type of educational activity did you go to / do you intend to go to?

TTyyppee ooff aaccttiivviittyyvvoouucchheerr((ttoo bbee))

uusseedd ffoorr

TTOOTTAALL Launceston

Perth

BASE: ACCEPTERS WHO HAVE USED ORINTEND TO USE THE VOUCHER 285 25 260

% % %An inventory such as FOCCUS,FOCCUS PLUS or PREPARE

38 12 ✩ 40

A group course of two or more sessions 34 60 ✩ 32

Another type of course 13 4 ✩ 13

Don’t know / haven’t decided 16 24 15

TOTAL 101* 100 100* Does not total 100% due to rounding.

✩ Denotes a statistically significant difference at 0.05 confidence level when compared toLaunceston's results

The inventory style activity was most likely to be undertaken in Perth, with 40%nominating this, significantly more than the 12% nominating this in Launceston;whereas the group course of two or more sessions was more likely to beundertaken in Launceston (60% versus 32% in Perth).

Other sub-groups:The inventory style activities were most likely to be / have been undertaken by:• The largest majority of those who say they would have gone to

something even without the voucher say they would have attended aninventory style activity (46%).

• Those with some degree of religious participation (low or moderateinvolvement = 39%; high involvement = 48%, versus 33% of those with noinvolvement);

• Those in a blue collar occupation (42%, versus 35% of those in whitecollar occupations); and

• Those who have been or are being married by a religious celebrant (41%versus 12% of those being married by a civil celebrant).

The group course activities were most likely to be undertaken by:• Those who obtained the voucher via the Hotline (52% - although note

small base [n=25]);

- 49 -


• Those being married by a civil celebrant (47%);

• Those aged 35+ (44%); and

• Those with no religious participation (38%; versus 32% of those withlow/moderate involvement and 30% of those who are highly involved).

The largest proportions of those who haven't decided where they will use thevoucher are evident for the following groups:• Those who have accepted and intend to use the voucher (35%)

• Three in ten of those who would have done nothing without thevoucher (31%) haven't decided where they will use the voucher.

6.6. Attendance at alternate MRE activities

In order to understand the impact of the voucher scheme on the non-fundedservice providers a series of questions relating to attendance at other MREactivities were included. Firstly, respondents were asked to choose which one ofthree statements applied most to them. The results are shown in Table 6.6a.

Table 6.6a Attendance at any alternate MRE activities had voucher notbeen available

Q18a Please tell me which of the following statements applies most to you? Ifthe voucher had not been available, you would have …

AAtttteennddaannccee aattootthheerr aaccttiivviittiieess

TTOOTTAALL WWaavvee11

WWaavvee22

BASE: THOSE WHO ACCEPTED / REQUESTEDTHE VOUCHER 362 188 174

% % %Would have had to attend some form ofMRE activity before the celebrant wouldhave conducted the marriage ceremony

29 30 28

Would have attended some other formof pre-marriage education anyway

27 29 25

Would not have gone to any sort of pre-marriage education instead

40 40 40

Don’t know 4 1 ✩ 7

TOTAL 100 100 100


- 50 -


Two in five of those respondents who accepted / requested the voucher (40%)said they would not have attended any other form of pre-marriage educationhad the voucher not been available.

Fifty six percent said they would have attended some form of MRE activity, andaround half of these said this was because the celebrant required it before he orshe would conduct the ceremony (29%).

There is little variation between the two waves of research, aside from astatistically significant increase in the proportion saying they didn't know what theywould have done.

By sub-groups:The following groups would have had to attend some form of pre-marriageeducation activity before their celebrant would conduct the ceremony:• Not surprisingly, those being married by a religious marriage celebrant

were much more likely to say they would have had to attend some form ofMRE activity before their celebrant would conduct the ceremony (36%versus 7% of those being married by a civil marriage celebrant).

• A third of those who have already used or intend to use the voucher (35%)said they would have had to attend some form of MRE activity before theircelebrant would conduct the ceremony.

The following groups profess the greatest tendency to not have done any form ofpre-marriage education without the voucher:• Over three quarters of those being married by a civil celebrant (77%) said

they would not have gone to any sort of pre-marriage education activityhad they not received a voucher (versus 28% for religious celebrants).

• Those with no degree of participation in a church were significantlymore likely than those with any degree of participation to say they wouldnot have gone to any sort of MRE activity without the voucher (56% ofthose with no religious participation, versus 25% of those with low tomoderate participation and 30% of those with high participation).

• Almost two thirds (63%) of those who thought MRE was not very or not atall relevant said they would not have gone to any sort of MRE activitywithout the voucher.

Those who said that they would have attended some other MRE activity had thevoucher not been available were asked what sort of activity they would haveattended. Results for this group are shown in Table 6.6b.

- 51 -


Table 6.6b Type of MRE activity would have attended

Q18b What activity would you have attended?

TTyyppee ooff aaccttiivviittyy


WWaavvee22

BASE: THOSE WHO WOULD HAVE ATTENDEDSOME OTHER ACTIVITY REGARDLESS OFVOUCHER

202 110 92

% % %One conducted by my celebrant or localchurch

47 54 ✩ 38

One conducted by an organisation offeringMRE, such as Relationships Australia,Centrecare, Kinway, Wesley.

45 41 51

One conducted by another agency 1 3 -

Don’t know 6 3 ✩ 11

TOTAL 99* 101* 100


* Does not total 100% due to rounding

Overall, around half of those who said they would have attended some form ofpre-marriage education activity regardless of the existence of the voucher (47%)said that had the voucher not been available, they would have attended some formof activity conducted by their celebrant or local church. Almost the sameproportion (45%) said they would have attended something conducted by an MREorganisation.

Wave 2 saw an significant decrease in the proportion saying they would haveattended something conducted by their celebrant or local church (54% down to38%). There was also an increase (albeit not significant) in the proportion sayingthey would attend something conducted by an MRE organisation (41% up to 51%).

Sub-groups:Professed levels of attendance at an activity conducted by a celebrant or localchurch were highest amongst:

• Those being married by a religious celebrant (50% compared to 22%4 ofthose being married by a civil celebrant);

• Those aged 18 – 24, with 61% nominating this option compared to 42% of25-34 year old and 35% of 35+ year olds; and

4 Note small base n=18

- 52 -


• Those with any level of religious participation with 51% of this groupsaying they would attend something with their celebrant versus those withno religious involvement (38%).

Highest levels of attendance at an activity conducted by an organisation offeringrelationship education was claimed amongst:

• Those aged 35+ years of whom 59% nominated this option compared to44% of those aged 18 – 34 years;

• Those with no level of religious participation with 52% of this groupsaying they would attend at an MRE organisation versus those with anyreligious involvement (42%).

The differences between blue and white collar groups that were observed in Wave1 have now evened out.

All respondents were asked whether they intended to go to any MRE activity, withthose who had had access to the voucher asked about other activities apart fromthat for which they had used the voucher. Responses are shown in Table 6.6c.

Table 6.6c Expect to undertake other MRE activity

Q19a In addition to any activity you may have done through the existingvoucher, are you intending to go to another relationship educationactivity?


TTOOTTAALL WWaavvee 11 WWaavvee 22BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS 382 202 180

% % %Yes 16 19 14

No 84 81 86

TOTAL 100 100 100

One in six respondents (16%) said they are intending to go to another MREactivity in addition to the activity attended with the voucher. There was a slightdecrease in the proportion saying this from Wave 1 to Wave 2, however this wasnot significant.

Sub-groups:Sub-groups that were likely to say they are intending to go to a additional activitywere:

- 53 -


• Those who had been together less than three years were significantlymore inclined to say they would attend some other activity (22% versus 12%of those who had been together for three years or more).

• Not surprisingly, those who thought that MRE was very or fairly relevantwere more inclined to say they would attend something in addition (35%versus 4% of those who though MRE was not very or not at all relevant).

• Those who were educated to tertiary level were more favourable to the ideaof attending additional activities (22% versus 12% of those educated up tosecondary level and 13% of those who had undertaken post-secondary /technical education).

Table 6.6d shows the results of this question for the total survey sample bywhether respondents had rejected or accepted the voucher.

Table 6.6d Expect to undertake other MRE activity, by whether acceptedor rejected voucher

EExxppeecctt ttoo uunnddeerrttaakkee ootthheerraaccttiivviittyy

Rejected

voucher

outright(a)

Accepted

thenreject

edvouche

r(b)

Accepted andused

voucher

(c)

Accepted andintendto use(d)

Hotliners(e)

BASE: ALLRESPONDENTS 20+ 77 164 97 25+

% % % % %Yes 15 10 bd 22 9 24

No 85 90 bd 78 91 76

TOTAL 100 100 100 100 100+ Note small basebd indicates columns to which statistically significant variations occur at 0.05 confidence level

Note: For the purpose of analysis, those who said they do not know whether theywould use the voucher (n=18) are included in the "Accepted then rejected thevoucher" break sub-group on the assumption that they are unlikely to redeem.

Notably, those who had already used the voucher were significantly more likely toconsider doing another sort of MRE activity, suggesting that once the person hasattended one MRE activity, they are more favourably disposed to MRE ingeneral.

- 54 -


It would be expected that those obtaining their voucher via the Hotline would befavourable pre-disposed to MRE anyway (24% - note small base [n=25]).

- 55 -


Those who said they did intend to undertake some other type of MRE activity werethen asked what sort of activity they were likely to attend. Responses are shownin Table 6.6e.

Table 6.6e What other MRE activity expect to undertake

Q19b What type of activity are you intending to go to?


TTOOTTAALL

WWaavvee11

WWaavvee22

BASE: THOSE WHO INTEND TO UNDERTAKEADDITIONAL MRE ACTIVITY 63 38 25+

% % %One conducted by my celebrant or localchurch

33 29 39

One conducted by an organisation offeringMRE, such as Relationships Australia,Centrecare, Kinway,, Wesley.

53 61 42

One conducted by another agency 6 8 3

Don’t know 8 3 15

TOTAL 100 101* 99*+ Note small base* Does not total 100% due to rounding.

Just over a half (53%) said they intended to attend an activity conducted by anMRE organisation. A further third (33%) said they planned to attend an activityconducted by their celebrant or local church.

There was little variation between waves.

The base size is too small for meaningful sub-group analysis.

- 56 -


7 MRE ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN USING THEVOUCHER

Those who had already used the voucher were asked a series of questions aboutthe activity they had undertaken and its impact on them and their relationship.

7.1. Status of activity undertaken

Firstly, respondents who had used the voucher were asked what stage they wereup to with the activity they had undertaken. Results are shown in Table 7.1.

Table 7.1 Progress through activity

Q9a. At what stage are you in the marriage education activity that you enrolledin?

PPrrooggrreessss tthhrroouugghhaaccttiivviittyy


WWaavvee22

BASE: THOSE WHO HAVE USED THE VOUCHER 185 84 101% % %

I have completed it 89 86 91

I am still doing it 9 11 8

I have enrolled but haven’t started yet 1 1 1

I stopped going 1 2 -

Total 100 100 100

Around nine in ten (89%) had already completed the activity undertaken via thevoucher scheme. This translates to 43% of the overall total survey sample whohave undertaken and completed some MRE activity using the voucher scheme(36% of the total survey sample for Wave 1 and 51% of the total survey sample forWave 2).

A further one in ten (9%) were still involved in the activity (4% of total surveysample). Only 1% overall said they had stopped going (less than 1% of the totalsurvey sample).

There was minimal variation by sub-group.

- 57 -


The two people (1% of those who had used the voucher) who said they hadstopped going were asked why they stopped. Each gave a different reason: onesaid that MRE was for people with problems and the other said they didn't need it.

- 58 -


7.2. Effect on relationship of undertaking activity

Respondents were next asked to indicate which of four statements best describedthe effect on their relationship of having attended the MRE activity. Results areshown in Table 7.2a.

Table 7.2a Effect on relationship of attending MRE activity

Q10a. Which of the following best describes what happened in your relationshipas a result of doing the pre marriage education activity?

WWhhaatt hhaappppeenneedd aassaa rreessuulltt ooff ddooiinngg

aaccttiivviittyy


WWaavvee22


My relationship improved 44 44 44

My relationship stayed pretty much thesame

53 52 54

My relationship deteriorated / encountereddifficulties

- - -

My relationship ended - - -

Not sure / don’t know 3 4 2

Total 100 100 100

Just over half of the total sample (53%) said their relationship had stayed thesame.

There was minimal change between waves of research, and minimal variationbetween sub-groups.

Those who said their relationship had improved were asked to give reasons forwhy this was so. This was an open-ended question whereby respondents wereable to give any response and these were then post-coded. Responses areshown in Table 7.2b.

- 59 -


Table 7.2b Ways in which relationship has improved

Q10b In what ways do you feel your relationship has improved?

WWaayyss iinn wwhhiicchhrreellaattiioonnsshhiipp

iimmpprroovveedd


WWaavvee22

BASE: THOSE WHO SAID THEIR RELATIONSHIPHAD IMPROVED 82 37 45

%* %* %*

Improved our communication 64 62 66

Helped us understand each other 23 38 ✩ 11

Helped us learn problem-solving skills /different approaches

11 19 5

Helped us prepare for problems that mightoccur

11 16 7

Made me feel more confident that ourmarriage would work

6 5 7

We learnt about commitment 3 - 5

Meeting others in same situation 3 - 5

Helped me appreciate my partner more 2 3 2* Totals more than 100% due to multiple responses✩ Denotes a statistically significant difference at 0.05 confidence level when compared to Wave

1 results

The improvement of communication skills is seen as by far the major improvement(64%), followed by improved understanding (23%).

The base size is too small for meaningful sub-group analysis.

7.3. Aspects of attendance at activity

Respondents were asked to indicate to what degree each of two aspects aboutcourse attendance suited them. In this case first the statement and then the scaleto be used was read out to the respondent. Results are shown in Table 7.3.

- 60 -


Table 7.3 How well certain aspects of the activity suited

Q11. How well did each of these things suit you?

AAssppeeccttss ooffaatttteennddaannccee


WWaavvee22

BASE: THOSE WHO HAVE USED THE VOUCHER 185 84 101The location or venue of the activity youattended

% % %

Suited me very well 47 42 52

Suited me fairly well 48 52 45

Didn’t suit me at all 4 6 3

The times at which the activity was runSuited me very well 59 51 65

Suited me fairly well 35 40 30

Didn’t suit me at all 7 8 5

Overall, very few people said that the venue or times for the activity didn't suitthem at all (4% and 7% respectively).

Almost half (47%) said the venue suited them very well, and six in ten (59%) saidthe times suited them very well.

Since Wave 1, there has been an increase (albeit not significant) in the proportionsaying the venue or times suited them very well (42% up to 52% and 51% up to65% respectively).

Those using a religious marriage celebrant were significantly more likely to saythe venue suited them very well (50% versus 18% of those using a civil marriagecelebrant – note small base [n=17]).

There were only minor variations for other sub-groups.

- 61 -


7.4. Satisfaction with content of activity

Respondents were asked to indicate how satisfied or dissatisfied they were withvarious aspects of the MRE activity. Each respondent was first read the statementand then the scale. Results are shown in Table 7.4a opposite.

The vast majority of respondents were either very or somewhat satisfied with eachof the aspects listed (86% to 95% very or somewhat satisfied).

• The largest level of dissatisfaction occurred for the quality of theeducators who ran the program, however, this was low, with only 5% ofrespondents overall saying they were either somewhat or very dissatisfied.This aspect also recorded the largest proportion of strong satisfaction with72% very satisfied.

• Largest satisfaction overall occurred for the way educators dealt withroles of men and women in relationships, with 95% saying they were veryor somewhat satisfied.

Results were consistent across waves.

- 62 -


The results for each aspect are shown by disposition to the voucher in Table 7.4bopposite.

As can be seen from the table, those who say they would have gone tosomething even without the voucher are more likely than those who would havedone nothing without the voucher to express strong satisfaction with each of theaspects. In particular, the following aspects show significant variations:

• The ideas about relationships that were presented by the educators;

• The quality of the educators who ran the program; and

• The new skills I learnt for communicating with my partner.

Those who were (being) married by a civil celebrant (note small base n=17) wereslightly more likely than those (being) married by a religious celebrant to say theywere very satisfied with the following aspects:

• The ideas about relationships presented by the educators (59% versus48% of those being married by a religious celebrant);

• The way the educators dealt with the roles of men and women inrelationships (65% versus 57% of those being married by a religiouscelebrant); and

• The new skills I learnt for communicating with my partner (65% versus48% of those being married by a religious celebrant).

Whereas those who were (being) married by a religious celebrant were slightlymore likely than those being married by a civil celebrant (note small base) to saythey were very satisfied with these aspects:

• The new skills I learnt for conflict resolution (47% versus 35% of thosebeing married by a civil celebrant);

• The quality of the educators who ran the program (73% versus 53% ofthose being married by a civil celebrant).

In general, those with any level of participation in their church were moreinclined to be very satisfied with all the aspects than those who had noinvolvement with their church.

The sample size for Launceston [n=13] is too small for analysis by location.

Respondents were asked whether there were any topics that were not covered inthe MRE activity they had attended, that they thought should have been.Responses are shown in Table 7.4c.

- 63 -


Table 7.4c Additional topics that should have been included

Q13 What topics, if any, were you interested in that were not covered?

AAddddiittiioonnaall ttooppiiccsspprrooppoosseedd


WWaavvee22


None / there was nothing else that shouldhave been included

86 81 90

Family of origin issues / family situations 3 1 4

More specific information oncommunication skills

2 4 -

Conflict resolution 2 2 1

Sexuality / family planning 2 2 2

Child rearing 2 2 1

More practice between partners in thecourse

2 2 1

Too short / not enough depth 2 - 4

Personal testimonials / people withexperience

1 2 -

Financial issues 1 2 -

Cultural and religious differences 1 2 -

Future scenarios / possible problems 1 2 -* Totals more than 100% due to multiple responses

The vast majority (86%) could not nominate any particular thing that they thoughtshould have been covered in the activity they had attended.

The specific area that attained the most responses was family of origin issueshowever this topic was mentioned by only 5 respondents in total.

- 64 -


7.5. Personal effects of participation in MRE

Those who had used the voucher were asked to indicate their level of agreementwith certain statements regarding the personal effects of participation in MREactivity. Results are shown in Table 7.5 opposite.

The majority of respondents agree, either strongly or slightly with each of thestatements presented (67% - 88%). Results for Wave 2 show slightimprovements in the levels of strong satisfaction for many of the statements, butonly one of these trends was significant - you feel you are more likely torecognise any serious relationship difficulties.

There were minimal variations by sub-group.

7.6. Perceived usefulness of MRE activity

Respondents were asked whether they thought the MRE activity was useful tothem or not. Results are shown in Table 7.6a.

Table 7.6a Perceived usefulness of MRE activity

Q15. How useful do you think this marriage education activity was to you?

PPeerrcceeiivveedduusseeffuullnneessss ooff MMEE


WWaavvee22

BASE: THOSE WHO HAVE USED THE

VOUCHER

185 84 101

% % %Very useful 48 43 53Fairly useful 42 43 41Not very useful 3 5 2Not at all useful 3 5 2Don’t know 3 5 2

In total, 90% of those who had attended an activity with the voucher said theythought the activity was either very or fairly useful to them. There was a slightimprovement on this measure in Wave 2 (94% versus 86% in Wave 1).

Those who had used the voucher were then asked whether they wouldrecommend that activity to someone else. Results are shown in Table 7.6b.

- 65 -


Table 7.6b Recommendation of MRE activity to someone else

Q16. Would you recommend [the activity] to someone else?

RReeccoommmmeenndd ootthheerrss


WWaavvee22


VOUCHER

185 84 101

% % %Yes 96 96 96No 2 1 3Don’t know 2 2 1TOTAL 100 99* 100


The vast majority (96%) said that they would recommend the activity to someoneelse, an endorsement of MRE in general.

Respondents were also asked to indicate their future intentions in relation toattendance at other MRE activities. Results are shown in Table 7.6c.

Table 7.6c Future intentions in relation to attendance at further MREactivity

Q17. Would you go to another marriage education activity in the future?

FFuuttuurree iinntteennttiioonnssffoorr MMRREE aaccttiivviittyy


WWaavvee22


VOUCHER

185 84 101

% % %Yes 68 74 63No 19 19 18Don’t know 13 7 ✩ 19TOTAL 100 100 100


Again, the vast majority of those who have already used the voucher (68%) saidthey would consider going to another similar activity in the future. Therewas a slight decrease due to the Wave 2 results, however, this was due to a

- 66 -


significantly greater number of respondents saying they did not know whether theywould attend any further activities.

Notably, those who were being married by a civil celebrant were significantlymore likely to say they would consider attending another activity in the future (88%versus 65%).

There was minimal variation by sub-group.

- 67 -


8 ATTITUDES TOWARDS MARRIAGE ANDRELATIONSHIP EDUCATION

In order to measure current prevailing attitudes, at the commencement of theinterview and prior to any discussion about the voucher scheme, voucherparticipants were asked to respond to some broad questions about marriage andrelationship education. The same questions were posed to those in the controllocations.

8.1. Perceived importance of MRE

All respondents were therefore asked to indicate how important they thoughtmarriage education is in achieving a successful relationship. Results are shown inTable 8.1a for both the pilot and control samples.

Table 8.1a Perceived importance of marriage relationship education

Q2. How important do you think marriage education is in achieving asuccessful relationship?

IImmppoorrttaannccee ooffmmaarrrriiaaggee eedduuccaattiioonn

iinn aacchhiieevviinngg aassuucccceessssffuull

rreellaattiioonnsshhiipp


WWaavvee22

BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS 382 202 180% % %

Very important 38 36 41Fairly important 49 53 45Not very important 10 8 11Not at all important 2 2 1Don't know 1 - 2

TOTAL 100 99* 99** Does not total 100% due to rounding.

In total 87% of participants in the pilot locations said they thought that marriageand relationship education was very or fairly important in achieving a successfulrelationship.

- 68 -


As could be expected, there are some differences evident when compared to theresults achieved in the 1997 research5. In that project, 18% said MRE was veryimportant, 41% said it was fairly important; 25% said it was not very important; and10% said it was not at all important. It is important to note however that thepopulation is different for each project, with the 1997 research surveying thegeneral population and the current research surveying newly engaged or newlymarried couples.

Results for the question by the professed degree of religious participation areshown in Table 8.1b.

Table 8.1b Perceived importance of marriage relationship education, bydegree of religious participation

IImmppoorrttaannccee ooff mmaarrrriiaaggeeeedduuccaattiioonn iinn aacchhiieevviinngg

aa ssuucccceessssffuullrreellaattiioonnsshhiipp –– WWaavvee 11

Noreligiou

sparticipation(a)

Low /mod

religious

participation(b)

Highreligiou

sparticipation(c)

BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS 192 150 40

% % %Very important 34 39 55Fairly important 46 56 42Not very important bc16 a3 a2Not at all important 3 1 -Don't know 1 1 -TOTAL 100 100 99*

abc Indicates column against which significance at level 0.05 is reached* Does not total 100% due to rounding.

Not surprisingly, the perceived importance of MRE increases with the degree ofreligious involvement, with those with any degree of religious involvementoverwhelmingly agreeing that MRE is very or fairly important. Practically no-onewith any religious involvement said that MRE was not very or not at all important,whereas 19% of those with no religious involvement said this.

5 Development of Community Awareness Strategy. Report to Attorney General's Department

prepared by Donovan Research, 1997.

- 69 -


Hence, those being married by a religious celebrant are significantly more likelyto say that MRE is very or fairly important (41% versus 29% of those beingmarried by a civil celebrant).

Results for this question by disposition to the voucher are shown in Table 8.1c.

Table 8.1c Perceived importance of marriage relationship education, bydisposition to the voucher

IImmppoorrttaannccee ooff mmaarrrriiaaggeeeedduuccaattiioonn iinn aacchhiieevviinngg aassuucccceessssffuull rreellaattiioonnsshhiippNot

used &wouldhavedone

nothing(a)

Used(intend) butnot

withoutvoucher

(b)

Donesomething evenwithoutvoucher

(c)

Had todo

something (d)

BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS 81 97 98 106% % % %

Very important cd27 36 a45 a42Fairly important b37 a57 51 50Not very important bcd26 a4 a3 a8Not at all important bcd7 a- a 1 a -Don't know 1 3 - -TOTAL 98* 100 100 100


Not surprisingly, those who would have done nothing without the voucher aresignificantly more likely to think that MRE is not very or not at all important (33%compared to 4% - 8% for the other related sub-groups).

Again not surprisingly, those who had rejected the voucher were less likely thanthose who had accepted it, to regard MRE as very or fairly important. However,what is surprising is that four in five (82%) of those who had rejected thevoucher (either outright or at some point after accepting it from the celebrant)said they thought that MRE was very or fairly important.

There was minimal variation by other sub-groups.

- 70 -


The data were filtered by use of a civil celebrant, and the results are shown intable 8.1d.

Table 8.1d Perceived importance of marriage relationship education(filtered by use of civil celebrant)

Q2. How important do you think marriage education is in achieving asuccessful relationship?

IImmppoorrttaannccee ooffmmaarrrriiaaggee eedduuccaattiioonn

iinn aacchhiieevviinngg aassuucccceessssffuull

rreellaattiioonnsshhiipp((cclliieennttss ooff cciivviill

cceelleebbrraannttss))

VVoouucchheerr CCoonnttrrooll

BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS 107 64% %

Very important 31 23Fairly important 42 34Not very important 20 27Not at all important 6 13Don't know 1 3

TOTAL 100 100

Although there are no significant differences evident, there is an indication thatclients of civil celebrants in the voucher locations tend to place more importanceon MRE than do their counterparts in the control locations. This suggests thatthose in the voucher locations may have been influenced by their encounter withthe celebrant.

- 71 -


8.2. Perceived relevance of MRE

Participants were asked to indicate how relevant they thought marriage educationis for them. Results are shown in Table 8.2a for the pilot locations.

Table 8.2a Perceived relevance of marriage relationship education

Q3. At this point in your relationship, how relevant do you think marriageeducation is for you? Would you say it is …?

RReelleevvaannccee ooffmmaarrrriiaaggee eedduuccaattiioonn


WWaavvee22


Very relevant 25 22 29Fairly relevant 44 45 44Not very relevant 18 20 15Not at all relevant 12 13 10Don't know 1 - 2TOTAL 100 100 100

Significantly fewer people than thought MRE important in achieving a successfulrelationship, thought it was actually relevant to them (87% very important or fairlyimportant versus 69% very relevant or fairly relevant, respectively).

Three in ten participants (30%) said they thought that marriage and relationshipeducation was not very or at all relevant to them.

Again, there are some differences evident when compared to the results achievedin the 1997 research6. In the 1997 project, 7% said MRE was very relevant, 28%said it was fairly relevant; 36% said it was not very relevant; and 27% said it wasnot at all relevant. Note: the target group for each was different.

Results for the relevance of MRE by the professed degree of religious participationare shown in Table 8.2b.



- 72 -


Table 8.2b Perceived relevance of marriage relationship education, bydegree of religious participation

RReelleevvaannccee ooff mmaarrrriiaaggeeeedduuccaattiioonn

NNoorreelliiggiioo

uussppaarrttiicciippaattiioonn((aa))

LLooww //mmoodd

rreelliiggiioouuss

ppaarrttiicciippaattiioonn((bb))

HHiigghhrreelliiggiioo

uussppaarrttiicciippaattiioonn((cc))


% % %Very relevant 21 25 45Fairly relevant 35 55 48Not very relevant 23 14 5Not at all relevant 20 5 -Don't know 1 1 2TOTAL 100 100 100

abc Indicates column against which significance at level 0.05 is reached

Not surprisingly, the degree of religious involvement is influential in theperception of the relevance of MRE, with 56% of those with no religiousinvolvement saying it is very or fairly relevant compared to 80% of those withlow/medium involvement and 93% of those with high involvement. Results forrespondents by disposition to the voucher are shown in Table 8.2c.

Table 8.2c Perceived relevance of marriage relationship education, bydisposition to the voucher

RReelleevvaannccee ooff mmaarrrriiaaggeeeedduuccaattiioonn iinn aacchhiieevviinngg aassuucccceessssffuull rreellaattiioonnsshhiipp

Not used& wouldhavedone

nothing(a)

Used(intend)but notwithoutvoucher

(b)

Donesomething evenwithoutvoucher

(c)

Had todo

something (d)

BASE: ALL

RESPONDENTS81

97 98 106

% % % %Very relevant bcd9 ac23 a37 a29Fairly relevant bcd16 a55 a50 a51

- 73 -


73% 21% 13% 20%Not very relevant bcd31 a18 a10 a15Not at all relevant bcd42 a3 a3 a5Don't know 1 3 - 1TOTAL 99* 102* 100 100

abc Indicates column against which significance at level 0.05 is reached* Does not total 100% due to rounding.Not surprisingly, those who had not used the voucher and would have donenothing without it are significantly more likely to think that MRE is not very or not atall relevant (73% compared to 13% - 21% for the other related sub-groups).

By other sub-groups the following is evident:• Launceston participants were significantly more likely to say that MRE

was not very or not at all relevant to them than were those in Perth (46%versus 27%).

• Fifty eight percent of those being married by a civil celebrant thought thatMRE was not very or not at all relevant to them to them, compared to 18%of those being married by a religious celebrant, a significant variation.

• Those who had rejected the voucher ("rejecters") were, not surprisingly,significantly more likely than those who had accepted it ("accepters"), tosay that MRE was not very or not at all relevant to them (66% "rejecters"versus 15% "accepters" who had used the voucher; and 21% of"accepters" who had not used the voucher).

• Those aged 35+ were significantly more likely to say MRE was not at allrelevant than were other age groups (43% of 35+yo; 25% of 25-34 yo; 29%of 18 – 24 yo).

There was minimal variation for other sub-groups.

- 74 -


8.3. Perceived main aim of MRE

Participants were asked to say which of three statements about the main aim ofMRE they agreed with most. Results are shown in Table 8.3a for the total sample.

Table 8.3a Perceived main aim of marriage relationship education

Q4. In your view, what should be the main aim of MRE? I will read out threestatements. I'd like you to tell me which one you agree with most …?

MMaaiinn aaiimm ooff MMRREE


WWaavvee22


It should help people solve problems intheir relationship

24 29 ✩ 19

It should help people prevent majorproblems arising in their relationship

28 26 30

It should help people get more out oftheir relationship

29 29 29

All of them 18 15 21None of them 1 1 1

TOTAL 100 100 100✩ Denotes a statistically significant difference at 0.05 confidence level when compared to Wave

1 results

Responses to the three statements are roughly equal in proportion, with half (52%)focussing on either the solution or prevention of problems – with one in fourparticipants (24%) nominating either help to solve problems or getting more out oftheir relationship and 28% saying it would help to prevent major problems.

Almost three in ten (29%) said it would help people get more out of theirrelationships.

Eighteen percent could not settle on one in particular, so nominated all of them.

When the clients of civil celebrants in the voucher and control locations arecompared, they exhibit little difference in perceptions on this measure.

- 75 -


Results for the question by the professed degree of religious involvement areshown in Table 8.3b.

Table 8.3b Perceived main aim of marriage relationship education, bydegree of religious participation

MMaaiinn aaiimm ooff mmaarrrriiaaggeeeedduuccaattiioonn

NNoorreelliiggiioo


LLooww //mmoodd

rreelliiggiioouuss





% % %It should help people solveproblems in their relationship

23 c29 b12

It should help people preventmajor problems arising in theirrelationship

31 23 32

It should help people get moreout of their relationship

29 25 40

All of them b14 a24 15None of them 2 1 -TOTAL 99* 102* 99*


Degree of religious involvement again shows the greatest impact on theperceived main aim of MRE.

Those with a high involvement with their church are significantly less likely tofocus on the solving of problems and more likely to focus on getting more out ofthe relationship first, and then preventing major problems, second.

A quarter (24%) of those of low to moderate religious involvement nominated allthree categories. These participants were almost evenly spread across all threeaims.

Results for the question by disposition towards the voucher are shown in Table8.3c.

- 76 -


Table 8.3c Perceived main aim of marriage relationship education, bydisposition towards the voucher

IImmppoorrttaannccee ooff mmaarrrriiaaggeeeedduuccaattiioonn iinn aacchhiieevviinngg aassuucccceessssffuull rreellaattiioonnsshhiippNNoott

uusseedd &&wwoouullddhhaavveeddoonnee



wwiitthhoouutt

vvoouucchheerr

((bb))

DDoonneessoommeetthh

iinnggeevveenn

wwiitthhoouutt

vvoouucchheerr

((cc))

HHaadd ttooddoo


BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS 81 97 98 106% % % %

It should help people solveproblems in their relationship

20 28 21 26

It should help people preventmajor problems arising in theirrelationship

31 33 22 27

It should help people get moreout of their relationship

33 23 32 28

All of them c12 15 a24 18None of them 2 2 1 -TOTAL 98* 101* 100 99*ac indicates columns to which statistically significant variations occur at 0.05 confidence level


Surprisingly, there were no statistically significant variations between these sub-groups even those who rejected the vouchers had similar attitudes thosewho had accepted and / or used the voucher.

Those who place the greatest emphasis on solving problems are:

• Those who accepted and intend to use the voucher (33%) compared tothose who rejected the voucher (18%);

Those who place the greatest emphasis on preventing problems are:

• Those who accepted and have used the voucher (34% compared to18% of those who accepted and intend to use the voucher).

- 77 -


• Those with high religious involvement7 (32% versus 23% withlow/medium involvement).

7 Note small base (n=40)

- 78 -


Those who place the greatest emphasis on improving their relationship are:

• Those who are highly involved in their church (40% versus 25% ofthose with low to moderate involvement with their church, and 29% ofthose with no involvement).

8.4. Perceived barriers to participating in MRE activities

Participants were presented with a series of statements and asked to indicatewhether and to what degree each one applied to them. Results are shown inTable 8.4a opposite and on the following page.

The statements about particular barriers to MRE to which around half or more ofrespondents agree either a little or a lot are:

• Can only learn skills through experience (70%)

• Don't like to discuss personal issues in front of others (59%)

• Don't know enough about MRE (50%)

• You don't need to be taught it should come naturally (49%)

- 79 -


Of some importance to the voucher scheme is the reconfirmation that people donot see the cost as a major barrier to MRE, with 16% saying the sessions costtoo much. In the research conducted in 19978 9% of the total sample proposedthat cost was a barrier to attendance at MRE. [The reader is reminded that thissurvey was a general population survey and hence had a different samplecomposition.]

Very few people say they are worried about what other people might think ifthey find out they are attending MRE with 95% saying no, not at all to thisstatement. Similarly, this is the case for the sessions are mainly for coupleswith problems with 86% saying no, not at all.



- 80 -


Effects on these attitudes by respondents' disposition to the voucher arepresented in Table 8.4b opposite and on the following page.

As could be expected, there is a visible effect by respondent attitude or dispositionto the voucher.

- 81 -


Those who rejected the voucher were more likely to hold strong negative views('a lot') about MRE. This is particularly the case for the following, where thedifferences to related sub-groups are statistically significant:

• Can only learn skills through experience (58%);

• Don't have time (34%);

• Don't feel significant problems will occur (33%);

• Can sort things out yourself (32%);

• Should come naturally (31%);

• Don't need outside help (16%); and

• For couple with major problems (12%)

Those who rejected the voucher were also significantly more likely to say that theydon't know if the sessions cost too much (43%) indicating that the cost is of littleconsequence to the decision to use the voucher.

- 82 -


When the data was filtered such that only results for clients of civil celebrants wereincluded, there were only a couple of areas of significance occurring (the size ofthe difference required for significance is substantial for these sample sizes). Theresults are shown in Table 8.4c opposite.

Civils' couples in the voucher locations were significantly more likely disagree thatMRE was mainly for couples with major problems (78% saying no, not at allcompared to 58% of civils' couples in the control locations). This might haveoccurred because most couples in the voucher locations have been exposed tothe celebrants' spiel about MRE, and hence could suggest that one of the side-effects of the voucher scheme is that it itself is assisting with the acceptanceprocess to some extent.

This is borne out by the fact that civils' couples in the voucher locations are alsosignificantly more likely to disagree that they don't know enough about MRE(48% saying no, not at all compared to 25% of civils' control couples).

- 83 -


9 PROFILE OF SELECTED VOUCHER USERS

This section contains further analysis of respondents by their disposition to thevoucher.

Two particular characteristics that are of interest are whether the couple is beingmarried by a religious or a civil celebrant and the related aspect of the couple'sdegree of religiosity. In Table 9.1a, we show the profile of couples by whetherthey are being married by a civil or a religious celebrant, to see what effect thishas on disposition to the voucher overall.

Table 9.1a Disposition to the voucher, by whether being married by areligious or civil celebrant (total sample)

DDiissppoossiittiioonn ttootthhee vvoouucchheerr

TTOOTTAALL CCiivviillCCeelleebbrraanntt

RReelliiggiioouussCCeelleebbrraanntt


Have not used and would have donenothing without the voucher

21 64 ✩ 5

Have used (intend to use) but would havedone nothing without the voucher

26 20 28

Would have done something even withoutvoucher

26 11 ✩ 31

Would have had to do something evenwithout the voucher

27 6 ✩ 36

TOTAL 100 101* 100

✩ Denotes a statistically significant difference at 0.05 confidence level when compared to theresults for those being married by civil celebrants

* Does not total 100% due to rounding

As can be seen from the table, there is considerable difference in attitude to thevoucher between those being married by a civil celebrant and those beingmarried by a religious celebrant.

Of those being married by a civil celebrant almost two-thirds (64%) have notused and would have done nothing, even without the voucher. A further one infive (20%) have used or intend to use, but wouldn't have done anything without thevoucher.

- 84 -


Over a third (36%) of those being married by a religious celebrant would havehad to do something even without the voucher.

- 85 -


In Table 9.1b we show the profile of those couples being married by a religiouscelebrant and who have a stated religion (ie are not agnostic / atheist or noreligion) in terms of disposition to the voucher by degree of religious participation.

Note:Of the total sample, 31% of those being married by a religious celebrant say theyhave no involvement with a church; 54% say they have low to moderateparticipation; and 14% participate highly.

Table 9.1b Disposition to the voucher, by degree of participation inchurch activities

DDiissppoossiittiioonn ttoo tthheevvoouucchheerr

NNoorreelliiggiioo


LLooww //mmoodd

rreelliiggiioouuss




BASE: THOSE WHO ACCEPTED THE

VOUCHER

55 150 39+

% % %Have not used and would have donenothing without the voucher

bc13 ac3 ab-

Have used (intend to use) but wouldhave done nothing without the voucher

27 26 36

Would have done something evenwithout voucher

25 35 41

Would have had to do something evenwithout the voucher

36 36 26

TOTAL 101* 100 103*+ Note small baseabcd Indicates column against which significance at level 0.05 is reached* Does not total 100% due to rounding

Not surprisingly, those with no religious participation are significantly more likelythan any other group to have rejected the voucher (13% compared to 3% of low ormoderate involvement and 0% of those highly involved). This is the onlysignificant difference evident, however there are some other trends evident.

What is surprising is the proportion of those with a high level of involvement whosay that they have used or intend to use it but would have done nothing withoutthe voucher (36%). Another interesting finding is that 36% of those with no

- 86 -


involvement in a church say they would have had to do something before theircelebrant would marry them. Although surprising, this is understandable given thenumber of non-religious people getting married in a church.

- 87 -


A greater proportion of those who are highly involved in their church than any ofthe other related sub-groups say they would have done something even withoutthe voucher (41%).

In an attempt to show the major characteristics of particular groups of interest, theprofiles of the following three user groups are now shown in more detail:

1. Those who called the Hotline (note small sample);

2. Those who are not going to use the voucher; and

3. Those who used (are going to use) the voucher but wouldn't have doneanything otherwise.

Further detail about the other two groups, ie those who would have donesomething even without the voucher and those who would have had to dosomething before their celebrant would conduct the marriage are available inthe data tables that accompany this report under separate cover.

TThhoossee wwhhooccaalllleedd tthheeHHoottlliinnee9

Of the n=25 who called the Hotline, the following is indicated:

• Seven said they would have done nothing without the voucher;

• Nine said they would have done something even without the voucher;and

• Nine said would have had to do something before their celebrant wouldmarry them.

TThhoossee wwhhoo aarree nnoottggooiinngg ttoo uussee tthheevvoouucchheerr

Of those who not going to use the voucher, the following is indicated:

• All came to the scheme via a celebrant (not surprising since Hotliners wouldpresumably be positively pre-disposed);

9 Note small base [n=25]

- 88 -


• They are significantly more likely to have been or intend to be married bya civil celebrant than by a religious celebrant (84% are being married by acivil celebrant and 16% by a religious celebrant);

• They are significantly more likely to think that MRE is not very or not at allrelevant (73% say it is not very or not at all relevant compared to 25% whosay it is very or fairly relevant);

• They are significantly more likely to be aged 34 or under than 35 or over(69% are aged 34 or under and 30% are aged 35 or over);

• They are significantly more likely to have a combined income of over$50,000 (54% earn $50,001 or more; versus 40% who earn up to $50,000);

• They are slightly more likely to be female than male (ie 54% are femaleand 46% male);

• They are significantly more likely to Agnostic / Atheist than of anyreligious persuasion (53% say they have no formal religion; versus 25% whoare Anglican; and 14% who are Catholic – the two largest religious groups);

• They are significantly more likely to be of a lower educational level(49% have completed up to secondary school; versus 25% some /completed technical and 25% some / completed tertiary); and

• They are significantly more likely to be white collar than blue collar (48%white collar versus 33% blue collar).

TThhoossee wwhhoo uusseedd ((aarree ggooiinngg ttoo uussee)) tthheevvoouucchheerr bbuutt wwoouullddnn''tt hhaavvee ddoonnee aannyytthhiinnggootthheerrwwiissee

Of those who have used or intend to use the voucher, the following is indicated:

• 7% came via the Hotline; the remainder through a celebrant.

• They are significantly more likely to be aged 34 or under than 35 orover (84% are aged 34 or under and 16% are aged 35 or over);

• They are significantly more likely to have been or intend to be marriedby a religious celebrant than by a civil celebrant (79% by religiouscelebrant and 22% are being married by a civil celebrant);

• They are significantly more likely to think that MRE is very or fairlyrelevant (78% say it is very or fairly relevant compared to 21% who say itis not very or not at all relevant);

• They are significantly more likely to be white collar than blue collar(61% white collar versus 33% blue collar);

- 89 -


• They are significantly more likely to have a combined income of over$50,000 (61% earn $50,001 or more; versus 28% who earn up to$50,000);

• They are slightly more likely to be male than female (54% are male and46% are female); and

• They are significantly more likely to be Catholic than any other religion(46% are Catholic; versus 20% Agnostic / Atheist (no religion) and 18%Anglican).

- 90 -


PART TWO: KIT EVALUATION

- 91 -


10 SUMMARY OF RESEARCH FINDINGS– KITEVALUATION

• Overall the majority of respondents acknowledged both the importance andrelevance of MRE. Support was higher than that found in the voucherevaluation, but this was likely to be influenced by the self-selecting nature ofthe kit sample.

• There is a greater propensity for step and blended families amongst kitcouples, which could explain the greater perceived importance of MREamongst kit respondents with children (see section 12.1).

• The level of concern about aspects of MRE was relatively low, with the highestlevels of agreement being with:

- you can only learn relationship skills through experience (70%),

- you don’t like to discuss personal things in front of other people(63%), and

- you don’t know enough about marriage education (60%).

• Most respondents acknowledged that there was:

- a chance that problems would arise in their relationship,

- that MRE is not solely for couples with problems, and

- they may at some point need some help sorting things out.

• Around two-thirds of kit recipients had used some or all of it, the most popularitem being the booklet and the least being the audio-cassette. In most caseskit activities were used together by the couple. Around one-quarter had usedthe booklet or the audio-cassette by themselves without their partner.

• Most respondents who used the kit found it useful. Interestingly those withchildren in the home were more likely to say they found the kit very useful,which refutes the belief held by some in long-term / subsequent relationshipsthat MRE is primarily for first marriages / young couples and is not useful forthem.

• The kit was mainly liked for providing general information about what’sinvolved in a marriage and for helping the couple to find out new things abouteach other.

• The booklet was considered the most useful and the most relevant item of thekit. The booklet and the video were considered equally convenient to use andeasy to understand.

- 92 -


• Most respondents liked the fact that the kit could be used at home. In terms ofcontent, respondents agreed that the kit:

- showed positive role models for men and women in relationships,

- gave ideas about ways to deal with problems that might arise, and

- identified issues in the relationship to consider.

• Nine in ten respondents felt that they had learnt a lot / some new things fromusing the kit. This was particularly noted amongst those with a secondaryeducation and those with children in the home.

• Most respondents reported practising some of the skills they had learned fromthe kit. Encouragingly, males were generally more likely to say they hadpractised listening in a positive / encouraging way, working together to resolveissues and showing appreciation to their partner.

• Suggestions for additional topics in the kit were minimal, with most saying thatthey did not think there was anything else that should have been included.

• Most respondents felt that they had gained something positive from the kit,particularly that what they had learnt would be of lasting value. Other aspectsthat were strongly supported were that respondents:

- felt more able to recognise problems when they arose,

- had learnt some new skills for communicating with their partner, and

- had learnt skills for conflict resolution.

• Around one-third of respondents in the voucher pilot areas (n=29) had alsobeen offered a voucher and four in five (80%) of those had accepted it.

• Of those who would consider taking part in MRE in the future, the mainadvantages of MRE over the kit were acknowledged as the:

- group setting, and

- potential for personal participation in the sessions.

- 93 -


11 RESEARCH METHOD

11.1. Overall Method

As it was initially planned to release the kit at around the same time as thevoucher pilot commenced, it was envisaged that one survey would cover the bothareas. Since the development of the kit was delayed, it was not possible for boththe kit and the voucher surveys to be conducted in unison.

A separate telephone survey was therefore conducted amongst people who hadpicked up a copy of the kit at various venues or who had requested a kit from theHotline. Respondents were located in one of three States, Tasmania, WesternAustralia and South Australia.

Contact details of kit recipients were provided to NFO Donovan Research by theDepartment and survey respondents were chosen at random from this list.Interviews were conducted by telephone using Computer Assisted TelephoneInterviewing (CATI).

A total of 168 interviews were achieved. Surveys Australia conducted fieldwork forthe project.

Interviewing took place from 29th August through to 5th September2000.

11.2. Questionnaire

NFO Donovan Research, in consultation with FaCS, developed the questionnairefor the kit evaluation. The questionnaire combined elements of previously usedquestionnaires, in order to maximise comparability with existing data, and includedcustomised questions to measure reactions to and usage of the Two Equals Onekit. A copy of the questionnaire for this component of the research is included atthe end of this report.

11.3. Data Weighting

Due to the contact database being skewed toward female kit recipients,interviewers were unable to achieve equal numbers of interviews with males andfemales despite attempting to interview males at every opportunity (interviewswere achieved with 64 males and 104 females). As gender is an importantvariable with respect to attitudinal research, it was important to ensure an evenrepresentation of males and females in the research. The data were therefore

- 94 -


post-weighted by the factors shown in Table 10.1 to correct for the genderimbalance.

All results reported herein are based upon the weighted data.

Table 11.3 Data weighting

NN %% DDeessiirreedd%%

WWeeiigghhttiinngg

ffaaccttoorr

TOTAL 168 100 100 -Male 64 38% 50% 1.3157Female 104 62% 50% 0.8064

Statistical significance

See section 4.8 for definition of statistical significance. For the kit evaluation, therelevant sample sizes are n=61 respondents being married by a civil celebrant andn=84 by a religious celebrant. Hence the average sample size is 72. Referenceto Table 4.8c indicates the degree of difference required before results arestatistically significant, for a sample of n=75.

Where applicable, differences that are statistically significant are commented onthroughout the text.

It should be noted that for the kit evaluation, due to the smaller sample sizecompared to the voucher sample, greater differences are required beforestatistical significance is achieved.

11.4. Sample Demographics

The sample profile for the kit evaluation is shown, together with the total sampleprofile for the voucher evaluation in Table 11.4a opposite and overleaf.`Notably, there are few significant differences between the two samples, indicatingthat they are actually quite comparable to the couples who were included in thevoucher evaluation.

Areas of difference were in marital status (which would be expected given thatthe voucher targeted those who were recently married or about to marry) andreligious denomination, in that there were less Catholics in the kit sample (31%versus 43%). Again, this could be expected since the Catholic service providers

- 95 -


(particularly in Perth) were said to have heavily promoted the voucher amongst itscouples.

There was also a difference in the degree of religiosity professed byrespondents. Kit respondents were significantly less likely to be involved in achurch, with 47% saying they are non religious (compared to 31% of the vouchersample) and 31% saying they had low to moderate involvement (compared to 54%in the voucher). This too is likely to be related to the factor mentioned above – thepromotion of the voucher amongst Catholic service providers.

In addition, there were significantly more with a combined income of $25,000 orless, however of note is that 8% of the total kit sample said they were not about tobe married and were thus possibly considering only their own income at this point.

- 96 -


12 ATTITUDES TOWARDS MRE

Respondents were asked a series of questions addressing their generaldisposition toward MRE. The majority of these questions were also asked in thetwo waves of the voucher evaluation and comparisons are made to the overallvoucher evaluation results where relevant. However, it is important to note thatsince the sample for the kit evaluation was largely self-selecting, attitudinaldifferences are likely to reflect that people who were more positive towards MRE ingeneral would be more likely to be motivated to source a kit.

12.1. Perceived importance of marriage education

Respondents were asked how important they thought marriage education is inachieving a successful relationship. Results are shown in Table 12.1 for the kitevaluation, with results for the voucher evaluation included for comparison.

Table 12.1 Perceived importance of marriage education

Q2. How important do you think marriage education is in achieving a successfulrelationship?

IImmppoorrttaannccee ooff mmaarrrriiaaggeeeedduuccaattiioonn iinn aacchhiieevviinngg

aa ssuucccceessssffuullrreellaattiioonnsshhiipp

KKiitt VVoouucchheerr


Very important ✩ 60 38Fairly important ✩ 34 49Not very important 6 10Not at all important 0 2Don’t know - 1TOTAL 100 100

✩ Denotes a statistically significant difference at 0.05 confidence level when compared tovoucher results

Overall, 94% of kit respondents felt that MRE was important in achieving asuccessful relationship. Three in five (60%) felt it was very important. This ishigher than was achieved in the voucher surveys (38% very important overall).Those with children living with them, were significantly more likely than thosewithout children, to say the kit was very important (73% and 56% respectively)

- 97 -


MRE was also more likely to be considered very important by respondents aged35+ (91% vs 53% 18-24 years and 50% 25-34 years).Compared to voucher respondents, kit respondents were significantly more likelyto say that MRE was both very and fairly important. It should be rememberedhowever, that the kit respondents chose to take the kit, so could reasonably beexpected to be more positively disposed towards MRE in general than those whocame in contact with the voucher.

Amongst voucher respondents there was little difference between those who hadchildren and those who did not.

12.2. Perceived relevance of MRE

Respondents were then asked how relevant they thought marriage education is forthem. Results are shown in Table 12.2 for the kit evaluation, with results for thevoucher evaluation included for comparison.

Table 12.2 Perceived relevance of marriage education

Q3. At this point in your relationship, how relevant do you think marriageeducation is for you?

RReelleevvaannccee ooff mmaarrrriiaaggeeeedduuccaattiioonn ttoo yyoouuKKiitt VVoouucchheerr


Very relevant 35 25Fairly relevant 45 44Not very relevant 17 18Not at all relevant 1 12Not in a relationship 2 -Don’t know - 1TOTAL 100 100✩ Denotes a statistically significant difference at 0.05 confidence level when compared to

voucher results

Overall, four in five respondents (80%) stated that MRE was very / fairly relevantto them. This result is higher than found in the voucher surveys (35% veryrelevant vs 25% in the voucher surveys). Somewhat surprisingly males were morelikely to say that it was very relevant (42% vs 27% females). Respondents with atertiary education (43% vs 25% secondary education) and those who reportedfinding the kit useful (43% vs 16% not useful) were also more likely to state thatMRE was very relevant to them.

✩ 80 69

- 98 -


There was no difference between those with children living with them and thosewithout.Again, compared to voucher respondents, kit respondents were significantly morelikely to say that MRE was very or fairly relevant. This is to be expectedconsidering that they are largely self-selecting.

12.3. Previous attendance at MRE activities

Kit respondents were asked whether they had ever taken part in relationshipeducation courses or activities at any time in the past. Results are shown in Table12.3.

Table 12.3 Previous attendance at MRE activities

Q4. Have you ever taken part in any marriage or relationship education coursesor activities?

OOwwnnppaarrttiicciippaattiioonn

iinn MMRREEaaccttiivviittyy

BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS 168%

Yes 24No 76

Three-quarters of respondents (76%) had not previously taken part in any form ofMRE.

Notably, those who were being married by a religious celebrant were more likely tosay that they had taken part in an MRE course or activity (34% vs 12% civilcelebrant).

- 99 -


12.4. Perceived barriers to participating in MRE activities

Respondents were presented with a series of statements about concerns relatingto participation in MRE activities. Responses are shown in Table 12.4 oppositeand overleaf with results for the voucher evaluation included for comparison.

Three major barriers to participation in MRE were noted, these were the attitudethat you can only learn relationship skills through experience, unwillingness todiscuss personal things in front of other people and lack of knowledge about MRE.

• One-third of respondents agreed a lot that you can only learnrelationship skills through experience, again comparable to the voucherevaluation results. Those with children in the home were more likely tostate a lot than those without children in the home (48% vs 27%).

• One-quarter of respondents (27%) agreed a lot that they don’t like todiscuss personal things in front of other people and one-third (36%)each agreed a little and disagreed with the statement. Again, these arecomparable to the results of the voucher evaluation surveys. Those whoagreed a lot were more likely to have children living in the home (39% vs22% without children).

• One-quarter of respondents (25%) agreed a lot that they don’t knowenough about marriage education, comparable with the voucherevaluation results. Those being married by a civil celebrant were morelikely to say a lot (43% vs 14% religious celebrant), as were those withlower than tertiary education (41% secondary, 44% technical vs 18%tertiary).

• Three-quarters of respondents (74%) disagreed with the statement thesessions are mainly for couples with major problems. This issignificantly lower than the proportion who disagreed in the voucherevaluation surveys (86% overall). Those who disagree with the statementwere more likely to be those who had used the kit together (81% vs 65%used separately) and those with higher incomes (82% >$50,000 vs 65%<$50,000).

• One in ten (11%) agreed a lot that they don’t need marriage education –you can sort things out for yourself. This result is comparable with thatobtained in the voucher evaluation surveys. Those saying a lot were morelikely to have children in the home (22% vs 7% no children), be blue collar(22% vs 3% white collar) and have a household income lower than$50,000 (22% vs 6% >$50,000).

- 100 -


• Three in five respondents (58%) disagreed that they don’t feelsignificant problems will occur in their relationship. There were nosub-group differences and the results are comparable with the voucherevaluation results.

• Almost one-half of respondents (47%) stated that they don’t knowwhether the sessions cost too much, a significant increase from thevoucher evaluation results (20% don’t know). There was also a significantchange in the proportion of those who disagree with the statement (asignificant drop from 65% no/not at all in the voucher evaluation to 35% inthe current survey). Those most likely to disagree with the statement werebeing married by a religious celebrant (42% vs 24% civil celebrant), havebeen in the relationship longer than three years (41% vs 26% <3 years)and have no children in the home (41% vs 20% with children). Those withchildren in the home were more likely to agree a lot with the statement(17% vs 3% no children).

• Nine in ten respondents (87%) were not worried what other peoplemight think if they found out they’re going to marriage education.This is, however a significant drop from the voucher evaluation results.There was also a significant increase in the proportion of respondentssaying a lot (5% up from 1% in the voucher evaluation). Those with atertiary education were more likely to disagree with the statement (97% vs80% secondary education).

• Just over one-half (55%) of respondents disagreed that they just don’thave time to attend marriage education sessions, again a significantdecline form the voucher evaluation results (76% no/not at all). Thisresult is likely to be influenced by the inclusion of South Australia in the kitevaluation, as there were significantly lower levels of disagreement in thisstate (44% vs 63% Western Australia).

• Just less than one in five respondents (16%) agreed a lot that you don’tneed to be taught how to relate to your partner, it should comenaturally. This is comparable with the voucher evaluation results. Thosemost likely to agree a lot were those with a relationship duration longerthan three years (21% vs 7% < 3 years). Conversely, older respondentswere most likely to disagree with the statement (62% 25-34 years, 63%35+ vs 41% 18-24 years).

• Just over one in ten respondents (14%) agreed a lot that the sessionsare not available where I live. Those living in South Australia (24% vs6% Western Australia) and blue collar respondents (22% vs 8% whitecollar) were most likely to respond a lot to this statement. Those with atertiary education were most likely to disagree with the statement (54% vs31% secondary). This question was not asked in the voucher evaluation.

- 101 -


Since the majority of South Australian respondents lived in rural areas it isnot surprising that services are not available to them locally.

With regard to differences between kit evaluation respondents versus voucherevaluation respondents, Voucher respondents were significantly more likely thankit respondents to deny (ie say no, not at all):

• That the sessions cost too much (65% of voucher respondents said no,not at all versus 35% of kit respondents), with kit respondents significantlymore likely to say they did not know than were voucher respondents (47%versus 20% respectively). This is to be expected, given the voucherrespondents were getting $200 worth of education for free.

• That they are worried about what other people might think if theyfound out about them going to MRE (95% saying no, not at all comparedto 87% of kit respondents).

• That the sessions are mainly for couples with major problems (86%saying no, not at all versus 74% of kit respondents).

• That they don't know enough about MRE (47% saying no, not at allversus 35% of kit respondents).

This suggests that on some aspects at least, there is a greater awareness andacceptance of MRE in the voucher pilot locations.

- 102 -


13 THE KIT AND ITS COMPONENTS

Respondents were asked a series of questions about the kit, such as where theyfound out about it, which parts they had used (with or without their partner) andhow useful each of the items in the kit was. Results are shown in the followingtables.

13.1. How found out about the kit

Firstly, respondents were asked how they found out about the kit. Responses areshown in Table 13.1.

Table 13.1 How found out about kit

Q6. How did you find out about the kit?

HHooww ffoouunnddoouutt aabboouutt

kkiittBASE: ALL RESPONDENTS 168

%I picked it up at a Bridal Fair / Expo / show venue 46I saw the ads and called the Hotline 34Celebrant gave it to me 6Celebrant gave me number and I called the Hotline 2Family member / friend gave me the kit 3Partner picked it up 3One of agencies gave it to me (RA, Centrecare, etc) 3Advertised on radio and I called Hotline 1

The most common way of acquiring the kit was through a Bridal Fair / Expo orother show venue (46%), followed by seeing the ads and calling the Hotline(34%).

Those living in South Australia were more likely to have seen the ads and calledthe Hotline (76% vs 0% WA) indicating that the kits were only advertised in SouthAustralia. Those living in Western Australia were more likely to have picked thekit up at a Bridal Fair / Expo or another show venue (91% vs 2% SA). Residentsof Tasmania were most likely to have received the kit from their celebrant,however the small sample size precludes significance testing. These figures areconsistent with the actual distribution methods detailed in section 1.1.

- 103 -


Males were more likely to say that their partner picked the kit up (6% vs 0%females).

Those who did not use any part of the kit (non-users) were most likely to havepicked up the kit from a Bridal Fair / Expo or other show venue (58% vs 39%in-depth users). This suggests that increased accessibility of the kit itself wouldnot necessarily increase usage, rather those who were likely to use the kit werewilling to go to a certain amount of effort to get it – as long as they had access toinformation about it (ie. advertising).

Those without children in the home, the tertiary educated and those with higherincomes were most likely to have accessed the kit through a Bridal Fair / Expo orother show venue. Older respondents (35+) and those with secondary or post-secondary/technical educations were most likely to have seen the ads and calledthe Hotline.

13.2. Kit usage

Respondents were then asked about specific aspect of their kit usage, which partsthey had used and whether couples used the items together or separately.Results are shown in Table 13.2a.

Table 13.2a Usage of any part of the kit

Q7a/8a Have you / your partner used the kit yet (ie read any part of the booklet,completed any quizzes, played any part of the video or audio cassettes?

OOwwnn uussee ooffkkiitt

PPaarrttnneerr''ssuussee ooff kkiitt


Yes 65 52

No 35 48

Overall, two-thirds of respondents (65%) and one-half of their partners (52%) haveused some or all of the kit. Respondents located in Western Australia were leastlikely to have used the kit (57% vs 72% SA). Those aged 35+ were more likely tostate that they had used the kit (81% vs 61% 18-24 years, 60% 25-34 years).Not surprisingly males were more likely to state that their partner had used thekit (66% vs 38% females).

There were only slight differences for either party, by whether celebrant was civilor religious. Respondents (who were getting or were already married) with high

- 104 -


religious involvement were more likely to have used the kit, although this was notsignificant when compared to the other groups (77% for high involvement, and61% for low to moderate involvement, and 65% of those with no involvement).

- 105 -


Respondents who have used any part of the kit were asked to indicate which partsin particular they had used. Results are shown in Table 13.2b.

Table 13.2b Usage of specific parts of kit

Q7b/8b Which parts of the kit have you used?

PPaarrttss ooffkkiitt

rreessppoonnddeenntt uusseedd


ppaarrttnneerruusseedd


KIT

110 87

%* %*Booklet 85 78

Video 58 34

Quizzes 40 60

Audio cassette 27 22* Totals more than 100% due to multiple responses

The most popular item of the kit for both respondents and their partners was thebooklet (85% respondents, 78% partners). The audio cassette was the leastpopular item. Those who used the kit together were more likely to have watchedthe video than lone-users.

There were no differences between sub-groups for either the respondent or theirpartner.

Data on use were recalculated across the entire sample to give an indication ofoverall penetration. Results are shown in Table 13.2c.

Table 13.2c Usage of specific parts of kit (across total sample)

Q7b/8b Which parts of the kit have you used?


rreessppoonnddeenntt uusseedd((ttoottaallssaammppllee))


ppaarrttnneerruusseedd

((ttoottaallssaammppllee))

BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS 168 168%* %*

Booklet 55 40Video 38 31

- 106 -


Quizzes 26 17Audio cassette 18 11

* May total more than 100% due to multiple responses

This indicates that just over half of kit recipients read the booklet (55%) and justover a third (38%) used the video, while a quarter (26%) did the quizzes. Theaudio tape was the least popular item, with less than one in five (18%) using it.

- 107 -


Respondents who had used any part of the kit were asked how much they hadread / watched / listened to or completed of each part. Results are shown in Table13.2d.

Table 13.2d How much of each item of kit read / watched / listened to, etc

Q7c. How much of each item did you read / watch / listen to / complete?

PPaarrttss ooff kkiittuusseedd

TThhoosseewwhhoo hhaadduusseeddiitteemm

AAccrroossssttoottaallssaammppllee

BASE: THOSE WHO USED THE BOOKLET 95 168Booklet % %

All of it 35 20Most of it 27 15Half of it 21 12A small proportion of it 17 10Did not use item NA 43

BASE: THOSE WHO USED THE VIDEO 62 168Video % %

All of it 91 34Most of it - -Half of it 1 <1A small proportion of it 8 3Did not use item NA 63

BASE: THOSE WHO USED THE QUIZZES 45 168Quizzes % %

All of it 62 16Most of it 13 4Half of it 17 4A small proportion of it 7 2Did not use item NA 73

BASE: THOSE WHO USED THE AUDIO CASSETTE 27* 168Audio cassette % %

All of it 51 9Most of it 14 2Half of it 7 1A small proportion of it 20 4None 7 1

- 108 -


Did not use item NA 84

* NOTE SMALL SAMPLE SIZE

- 109 -


• The majority of those who watched the video had watched all of it (91%).

• Three in five respondents who had read the booklet had read all or mostof it (62%).

• Of those who had completed the quizzes, three in five said they hadcompleted all of it (62%) and a further 13% had completed most of it.

• Of those who did listen to the audio cassette, half (51%) had listened toall of it. This suggests that the attitude of the couple in the qualitativeresearch who said that the content of the tape was better than some of theother materials, but they did not realise that until they began to listen, mightapply quite widely. The problem with the tape therefore appears to begetting couples to actually play it. One in five (20%) said that they had onlylistened to a small proportion of it.

• There were no sub-group differences on any of the above items.

The results were recalculated across the total sample to give an indication of thepenetration rate, as this gives an idea about usage across the target population inthe 'market place'. From this the following is indicated:

• The video and the booklet received most use with around a third of kitrecipients respectively using them in depth (ie all of it or most of it).

• One in five (20%) used the quizzes in depth, and the audio cassette wasused in depth by only one in ten (11%). The latter result is not unexpectedgiven the general unpopularity of the item in all phases of research.

Respondents who had used any part of the kit and whose partner had also usedthe same item were then asked whether they had worked through the item withtheir partner or alone. This resulted in reduced sample sizes when compared tothe previous table. Results are shown in Table 13.2e for those who have used,and recalculated across the total sample (ie those who received a kit).

- 110 -


Table 13.2e Worked through kit items together

Q9. Did you and your partner work through the kit together?

UUsseedd kkiittttooggeetthheerr

TThhoosseewwhhoohhaadduusseeddkkiitt

ttooggeetthheerr

TToottaallssaammppllee

BASE: COUPLES WHO HAVE BOTH USED THE

BOOKLET

59 168

Booklet % %Together 73 26Separately 27 9

BASE: COUPLES WHO HAVE BOTH USED THE VIDEO 45 168Video % %

Together 91 24Separately 9 2

BASE: COUPLES WHO HAVE BOTH USED THE

QUIZZES

29* 168

Quizzes % %Together 85 15Separately 15 2

BASE: COUPLES WHO HAVE BOTH USED THE AUDIO

CASSETTE

18* 168

Audio cassette % %Together 71 8Separately 29 3

* NOTE SMALL SAMPLE SIZES.

In the majority of cases where both partners used a part of the kit they did sotogether. For instance, nine in ten (91%) of those couples who had both watchedthe video did so as a couple, four in five (85%) had completed the quizzestogether and around three-quarters had read the booklet or listened to the audiocassette together (73% and 71% respectively.

- 111 -


However, less promising news is that only small percentages of the total sample ofkit recipients used the kit items together. Items of highest joint use were thebooklet (26%) and the video (24%).

Additional information is available in the data tables accompanying this reportunder separate cover.

- 112 -


13.3. Perceived usefulness of the kit

Respondents who had used any part of the kit were then asked to assess to whatdegree the kit had been useful to them. Results are shown in Table 13.3.

Table 13.3 Perceived usefulness of the kit

Q10a. How useful do you think this kit was to you?

PPeerrcceeiivveedduusseeffuullnneessss ooff kkiitt

TThhoosseewwhhoohhaavveeuusseedd

tthhee kkiitt

AAccrroossssttoottaallssaammppllee

BASE: THOSE WHO USED THE KIT 110 168% %

Very useful 28 18

Fairly useful 55 36

Not very useful 12 8Not at all useful 1 1Don’t know 5 4Have not used kit NA 34

Overall, four in five respondents (83%) found the kit very or fairly useful. Aroundone-quarter (28%) found the kit very useful. Those with children living in the homewere more likely to say the kit was very useful than those without children (43%vs 21%).

The main reasons why the kit was considered useful were:• General information / made you aware of what's involved in a marriage /

gave us some good ideas to think about (14%).

• Found out some things about each other that we didn't know before / helpsus to understand each other better (13%).

• Useful suggestions for communication issues / listening to each other etc(12%).

• Made you aware of / facing up to issues, solving problems, conflictresolution (9%).

• It was good / interesting / fun / true (no further information) (8%).

- 113 -


• It identified some problem areas we have / we subsequently sought helpfor problems identified (7%).

• Good to know where to go for help if you need it / help that is available(5%).

- 114 -


The main reason for the kit being considered not useful was:• There was nothing new in the kit / I already knew it all / it was relatively

basic (7%).

13.4. Overall assessment of the kit

Respondents were presented with a series of statements and asked to indicatewhether they agreed or not.

Firstly, those who had only used one part of the kit were asked whether itcontained useful information, was convenient and easy to use, was relevant andwas easy to understand. Results are shown in Table 13.4a.

Table 13.4a Overall assessment of kit, by those who had used only oneitem

Q11a. Would you say the (item)…?

PPeerrcceeppttiioonnss aabboouutttthhee kkiitt

BASE: THOSE WHO USED ONLY ONE ITEM OF THE KIT 37*%

Contained useful informationYes 98

No 2

Was convenient and easy to useYes 100

No -

Was relevant to youYes 88

No 9

Can't remember 2

Was easy to understandYes 100

No -* NOTE SMALL BASE SIZE

The size of the sample of respondents have used only one item of the kit is toosmall for analysis by medium, hence the table reflects an overall rating for the kitas a whole.

- 115 -


At least nine in ten respondents stated yes to each of these questions.

- 116 -


Those who had used more than one item from the kit in some depth were askedwhich of them was the most useful, convenient, relevant and easy to use. Resultsare shown in Table 13.4b.

Table 13.4b Overall assessment of kit, by those who had used multipleitems

Q11b. Which item from the kit would you say …?

PPeerrcceeppttiioonnss aabboouutttthhee kkiittiitteemm

BASE: THOSE WHO USED MULTIPLE ITEMS (IN SOME

DEPTH)

65

%Contained the most useful information

Booklet 66

Quizzes 7

Video 22

Audio 5

Was most convenient and easy to useBooklet 43

Quizzes 6

Video 44

Audio 7

Was most relevant to youBooklet 54

Quizzes 13

Video 31

Audio 3

Was easiest to understandBooklet 48

Quizzes 3

Video 45

Audio 3

The booklet was considered the most useful and relevant item, while the bookletand video were considered equally convenient and easy to understand.

However it should be remembered that all respondents who had used more thanone item were asked to rate the items, and they may not have used all items. The

- 117 -


low result for the audio tape, given the in depth usage reported elsewhere, is afunction of the low numbers of couples who have used it. Hence this is only ageneral guide.

- 118 -


Respondents who had used more than one item from the kit were presented with aseries of statements and asked the extent to which they agreed or disagreed withthem. Results are shown in Table 13.4c opposite.

• Almost all respondents (98%, 96% agree a lot) agreed that they liked thefact they could use the kit at home.

• Two thirds of respondents (66%) agreed that the kit was better thangoing to a group course or activity. Somewhat surprisingly, males weremore likely to agree a little with the statement than females (37% vs 17%)and females were slightly more likely to agree a lot (although thedifference is not significant). Those being married by a religious celebrantwere more likely to disagree than those being married by a civil celebrant(22% vs 7%), possibly reflecting the increased experience of groupactivities amongst those had or plan to have a religious wedding ceremony.

• Nine in ten respondents (95%) agreed that the kit shows positive rolemodels for men and women in relationships.

• Nine in ten respondents (95%) agreed that the kit gave us some ideasabout how to deal with any problems that might arise. Males weremore likely to agree a little with this statement than females (46% vs25%).

• Nine in ten respondents (90%) agreed that the kit identified a lot ofimportant relationship issues for us to consider.

• Three-quarters of respondents (78%) agreed that the kit helped us tounderstand each other better. Those who used the kit together weremore likely to disagree (19% vs 4% used separately).

• Only one-half of respondents (51%) agreed that the kit made us thinkabout the idea of going to a relationship course or activity. Those witha relationship duration of less than three years were more likely to agree alot with this statement (27% vs 12%). Those with up to secondary leveleducation were more likely to disagree than those who were tertiaryeducated (46% vs 26%).

- 119 -


Respondents who had used any item of the kit were asked how much they thoughtthey had learnt from using the kit. Results are shown in Table 13.4d.

Table 13.4d Amount learnt from using the kit

Q13 Amount learnt from using the kit

AAmmoouunnttlleeaarrnntt

ffrroomm uussiinnggtthhee kkiitt

BASE: THOSE WHO USED ANY ITEM 110%

I learnt a lot of new things 12

I learnt some new things 78

I learnt nothing new 7Don't know 3

Three-quarters of those who had used any item of the kit (78%) stated that theyhad learnt some new things and one in ten (12%) stated that they had learnt alot of new things. Those who had been in their relationship for less than threeyears were more likely to state they had learnt some new things (86% vs 71%longer than three years). Those with children living in the home were more likelyto say they learnt a lot of new things than those without children (23% vs 8%).This finding is of note since many people with children living in the home reportthat they do not feel MRE is relevant to them. Respondents with up to secondaryeducation were more likely to state they learnt a lot of new things than thosewith tertiary education (22% vs 11%).

- 120 -


Respondents who had used any part of the kit were presented with fourtechniques and asked whether they had tried them. Results are shown in Table13.4e.

Table 13.4e Techniques from the kit actually tried

Q14 The kit suggests some skills or techniques that can be used by couples.Which of these, if any, have you practised?

TTeecchhnniiqquueessttrriieedd

BASE: THOSE WHO USED KIT 110%

Expressing concerns in reasonable wayYes 75

No 23

Can't remember 2

Listening in a positive / encouraging wayYes 92

No 7

Can't remember 1

Working together to resolve issues or difficultiesYes 82

No 15

Can't remember 2

Showing appreciation to my partnerYes 86

No 11

Can't remember 3

There was a high level of professed trial for all of the four techniques presented.

• Nine in ten respondents (92%) said that they had practised listening in apositive / encouraging way. Males were more likely than females tohave practised this skill (100% vs 84%), as were those being married by areligious celebrant (99% vs 86% civil celebrant).

• Almost nine in ten respondents (86%) had practised showingappreciation to my partner. Those saying they had practised this skillwere more likely to be male (95% vs 77% female) and blue collar (94% vs81% white collar).

- 121 -


• Four in five respondents (82%) had practised working together toresolve issues or difficulties. Males were more likely to say that they hadpractised this skill (93% vs 72% females).

• Three quarters of respondents (75%) reported that they had practisedexpressing concerns in a reasonable way as a result of using the kit.Respondents with up to secondary education were more likely to say thatthey had not practised it than those with a tertiary education (33% vs11%).

Respondents were asked if there were any topics not covered in the kit that theyfelt should have been. Results are shown in Table 13.4f.

Table 13.4f Topics not covered by the kit

Q15 What topics, if any are you interested in that were not covered by the kit?

AAnnyyttooppiiccssnnoott

ccoovveerreeddbbyy kkiitt

BASE: THOSE WHO USED ANY ITEM 110%

None / there was nothing else that I thought should have beenincluded

83

Understanding things about self and partner (such as culturalbackground, behaviour patterns)

5

Blending families / step family issues / parenting skills 4

Communication issues / listening / knowing your partner'sdreams-hopes-needs

3

Finances 3

Sorting out issues-problems / anger management / confrontingissues

3

Family of origin issues / impact of in-laws 1

Few respondents had suggestions for additional topics for the kit, with four in five(83%) saying there was nothing else that I thought should have beenincluded. The only sub-group difference noted was that those with children livingin the home were more likely to request information on blending families / stepfamily issues / parenting skills (11% vs 1% no children).

- 122 -


Respondents who have used the kit were then presented with a series ofstatements and asked to what degree they agreed or disagreed. Results areshown in Table 13.4g opposite.

Again, there was high level of self-professed learning as a result of exposure tothe kit.• Nine in ten respondents agreed that they are confident what they have

learnt will be of lasting value. Males were more likely to agree with thisstatement than females (97% vs 87%).

• Four in five (82%) agreed that they are now more likely to recogniseany serious relationship difficulties. Those with children in the homewere more likely to agree strongly with this statement (64% vs 36%without children), as were respondents with an annual household incomelower than $50,000 (63% vs 33% >$50,000). Those with an income higherthan $50,000 were more likely to state that they agree slightly with thestatement (50% vs 22% <$50,000).

• Four in five respondents (84%) agreed that they have learnt some newskills for communicating with your partner.

• Three in five respondents (60%) agreed that they are now more likely toseek professional help to deal with relationship issues.

• Four in five respondents (84%) agreed that they feel they have learntsome new skills for conflict resolution. Those with children living in thehome were more likely to strongly agree with this statement (58% vs 37%without children).

Notably, there was only one statement which varied significantly by whether thecouple had used a kit or a voucher, and that was for are now more likely toseek professional help to deal with relationship issues. Those using the kit,were significantly less likely to agree that they would seek professional help todeal with relationship issues.

- 123 -


13.5. Intentions of future use

Respondents who had already used the kit were asked if they would continue touse these materials in the future. Results are shown in Table 13.5a.

Table 13.5a Intentions of re-use of kit materials in the future

Q17a Do you think you will continue to use materials from the kit in the future?

RRee--uussee ooffmmaatteerriiaallss

ffrroomm kkiitt iinntthhee ffuuttuurree


Yes 86

No 8

Don't know 6

Almost nine in ten respondents (86%) stated that they thought they wouldcontinue to use the kit materials in the future. Those with a secondaryeducation were more likely to answer yes to this question (92% vs 76% tertiaryeducated).

Respondents who had not already used the kit were asked whether they intendedto use it in the future. Results are shown in Table 13.5b.

Table 13.5b Intentions of using of kit materials for the first time

Q18a Do you intend to use the kit?

IInntteennttiioonnttoo uussee kkiittffoorr ffiirrsstt

ttiimmeeBASE: THOSE WHO HAVE NOT YET USED KIT 58

%Yes 84

No 9

Don’t know 8

- 124 -


Four in five of those who had not yet used the kit (84%) reported that they didintend to use it at a later date. Sub-groups were too small on this measure toallow statistical comparison.

- 125 -


13.6. Disposition towards the kit

Respondents were then asked whether they would recommend the kit to anyoneelse. Results are shown in Table 13.6.

Table 13.6 Testimonials to others

Q17b Would you recommend the kit to someone else?

WWoouulldd yyoouurreeccoommmmeennddttoo aannyyoonnee??


Yes 97

No 1

Don’t know 3

Almost all respondents (97%) reported that they would recommend the kit tosomeone else. All sub-groups were equally likely to recommend the kit.

- 126 -


14 THE VOUCHER SCHEME

14.1. Exposure to the voucher scheme

In order to ascertain whether couples in the voucher pilot locations had been givena choice about whether to use the voucher or the kit, couples in Perth andLaunceston were asked a series of questions about their exposure to the voucherscheme. Results are shown in Table 14.1.

Table 14.1 Exposure to the voucher scheme

Q19a (For those in the voucher pilot areas who are getting / have recently beenmarried) Did your marriage celebrant offer you a voucher so that you couldattend pre-marriage education?

EExxppoossuurreettoo vvoouucchheerr

sscchheemmeeBASE: THOSE IN VOUCHER PILOT AREAS WHO AREMARRYING

90

%Yes 36

No 64

Don’t know -

One-third of kit recipients in the pilot locations (36%) said they were also offered avoucher by their celebrant. Non-users of the kit were more likely to say they hadbeen offered the voucher than those who had used multiple parts of the kit (54%vs 24%), as were those being married by a religious celebrant (43% vs 27% civilcelebrants). Those with a relationship duration of less than three years were morelikely to say they had not been offered a voucher (78% vs 52% longer than threeyears).

- 127 -


14.2. Acceptance of the voucher

Respondents were asked about their acceptance or refusal of the voucher thatwas offered. Results are shown in Table 14.2.

Table 14.2 Acceptance of the voucher

Q19b (For those in the voucher pilot areas who are getting / have recently beenmarried) Did you accept the voucher that was offered? [Note small base]

AAcccceeppttaanncceeooff vvoouucchheerr

BASE: THOSE IN VOUCHER PILOT AREAS WHO AREMARRYING AND WERE OFFERED A VOUCHER

33*

%Yes 80

No 20

Don’t know -* NOTE SMALL BASE SIZE

Four in five kit recipients who had been offered a voucher (80%) accepted it,however, the sample base is too small to allow sub-group comparison on thismeasure.

14.3. Usage of the voucher

Those in the voucher pilot areas who are getting married, or who have recentlybeen married were then asked whether they had used the voucher. Results areshown in Table 14.3 [note small base].

Table 14.3 Usage of the voucher

Q19c (For those in the voucher pilot areas who are getting / have recently beenmarried) Have you used the voucher yet? [Note small base]

UUssaaggee ooffvvoouucchheerr

BASE: THOSE IN VOUCHER PILOT AREAS WHO AREMARRYING AND ACCEPTED THE VOUCHER

23*

%Yes 58

No 42

Don’t know -* NOTE SMALL BASE SIZE

- 128 -


Three in five kit recipients who accepted a voucher (58%) have used the voucher.Statistical comparison on this measure is not possible due to the small samplebase.

14.4. Intentions regarding future attendance at MRE

All respondents were asked whether they would consider attending an MREactivity in the future. Results are shown in Table 14.4a.

Table 14.4a Intentions re attendance at MRE in the future

Q19d Would you consider attending an MRE activity in the future?

FFuuttuurreeaatttteennddaannccee

aatt MMRREEBASE: ALL RESPONDENTS 168

%Yes 61

No 17

Don’t know / depends 21

Somewhat surprisingly, given that 96% of kit respondents liked (a lot) the idea ofbeing able to use the kit at home, three in five respondents stated that they wouldconsider attending an MRE in the future. This may be related to the fact that thisgroup is already positively pre-disposed to MRE to the extent that they havesought out the kit.

WA respondents were more likely to say yes than those in South Australia (74%vs 48%), as were those with a tertiary education (81% vs 49% secondaryeducation, 51% post secondary/technical) and those with an annual incomegreater than $50,000 (68% vs 51% <$50,000).

This question was not asked in the same way of voucher respondents (many ofwhom had just attended an MRE activity) and hence the two groups cannot becompared on this measure.

Those who said they would consider attending an MRE activity at some time in thefuture were then asked what they thought attendance at such an activity wouldprovide that the kit did not. The question was open-ended and the responseswere post-coded. Major response categories are shown in Table 14.4b.

- 129 -


Table 14.4b Benefits of attending an activity versus using the kit

Q19e What is it that you feel an MRE activity would give you that is not availablefrom the kit?

BBeenneeffiittssooff MMRREE

oovveerr kkiittBASE: THOSE WHO WOULD CONSIDER MRE ACTIVITY IN FUTURE 103

%Group setting /allows you to hear from others 36

Face-to-face things are better / personal participation /individual responses

31

Would give more detailed information 9

Third party-instructor would shed more light on things 6

Groups give you the feeling that you are not alone 3

Partner would (be forced to) participate 2

Give you more ideas for dealing with different issues 2

It would reinforce what's in the kit 2

Don't know as I haven't used the kit as yet 10

Don't know as I haven't used the kit as yet but will in thefuture

2

Don't know (no further information) 16* Totals more than 100% due to multiple responses

• In-depth users of the kit (44% vs 18% non-users) were more likely to saythat a group setting / allows you to hear from others is a positiveaspect of MRE that is not provided by the kit.

• Those with a tertiary education were also more likely to support face toface interaction (40% vs 12% secondary education).

- 130 -


15 RELATIONSHIP PROFILES

Demographic information was gathered on the couples’ relationship for both the kitand the voucher projects. Selected characteristics for each sample group areshown in the following tables for comparison and comment.

Table 15a Celebrant conducting marriage

Q21. Was your marriage ceremony / will your marriage ceremony be conductedby a civil or a religious marriage celebrant?

MMaarrrriiaaggeecceelleebbrraanntt iiss

……


BASE: THOSE BEING / ALREADY MARRIED 151 382% %

Civil 38 28Religious ✩ 58 72Don't know 4 -✩ Denotes a statistically significant difference at 0.05 confidence level when compared to

voucher results

Around three in five kit respondents were / will be married by a religious celebrant(58%). This is comparable with the results found in the voucher evaluation (28%civil, 72% religious). Not surprisingly, those with children living in the home weremore likely to be married by a civil celebrant (55% vs 32% without children).

Unlike the voucher respondents who were all intercepted in the process of beingmarried, a small proportion of kit respondents are not planning to get married, andhence the question was not asked of them. Kit respondents were significantly lesslikely to be having their marriage conducted by a religious celebrant than werevoucher respondents.

- 131 -


Table 15b Length of current relationship

Q22a. How long have you been in the relationship you are currently in?

Length of currentrelationship

Kit Voucher


Less than one year 4 51-3 years 36 373-10 years 52 56More than 10 years 7 2Refused 1 -

One-half of kit respondents (52%) had been in their current relationship for 3-10years. A further one-third had a relationship duration of 1-3 years. Those in therelationship for 1-3 years were more likely to have used the kit together (48% vs28% used kit alone).

Kit respondents were (almost significantly) more likely to have been in a long-termrelationship more than 10 years than were voucher respondents. This is likely tobe a function of the voucher respondents being intercepted in the process ofgetting married.

Table 15c Length of time cohabiting

Q22b. For how much of that time were you living together (including time sincemarried if applicable)?

LLeennggtthh ooffttiimmee

ccoohhaabbiittiinngg



We have not lived together yet 20 25Less than one year 17 191-3 years 32 313-10 years 26 23More than 10 years 4 -Refused - 1

- 132 -


One in five kit respondents (20%) had not lived together before marriage. Thosebeing married by a religious celebrant (24% vs 8% civil celebrant), those in shorterrelationships (32% 0-3 years vs 11% more than 3 years), and those withoutchildren (25% vs 8% with children in the home) were more likely to have not livedtogether before marriage.

Kit respondents were more likely to have lived with their partner for more than tenyears (4%) than were voucher respondents (0%). There was little other differencebetween the two.

Table 15d Presence of children from previous relationships

Q23a. Do either you or your partner have any children from a previousrelationship?

CChhiillddrreenn ffrroommpprreevviioouuss

rreellaattiioonnsshhiipp


BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS 168 382%* %*

Yes – self 19 12Yes – partner ✩ 23 11No ✩ 71 82

✩ Denotes a statistically significant difference at 0.05 confidence level when compared tovoucher results

* Totals more than 100% due to multiple responses

For kit respondents, in seven out of ten cases (71%), neither partner had anychildren from a previous relationship. One in five respondents (19%) and one-quarter of their partners (23%) had children from a previous relationship.Respondents in WA were less likely to have children from a previousrelationship than couples in SA (84% vs 58%), as were non-users of the kit (80%vs 66% in-depth users) and couples with a higher annual income (77% >$50,000vs 55% <$50,000).

In general, kit respondents were significantly more likely than voucher respondentsto have children from previous relationships with 29% of kit respondents and 18%of voucher respondents saying they or their partner have children from a previousrelationship. Both partners of the kit couples were more likely to have childrenthan were the voucher couples, indicating a greater incidence of step parenthood.

- 133 -


Table 15e Joint children from relationship

Q23b. Have you and your partner had any children together?

JJooiinnttcchhiillddrreenn



Yes 16 8No 84 92

Four in five kit couples (84%) have not had any children together. Joint childrenwere less likely amongst those being married by a religious celebrant (87% vs79% civil celebrant), those in shorter relationships (91% 0-3 years vs 79% 3 ormore years), those with tertiary education (94% vs 74% secondary education) andthose with higher incomes (97% >$50,000 vs 65% <$50,000).

Again, kit couples were (almost significantly) more likely than voucher couples tohave had children together.

Table 15f Children living with couple after marriage

Q23c. Do you currently, or when you marry will you have any children living withyou?

PPrreesseennccee ooffcchhiillddrreennaafftteerr

mmaarrrriiaaggee


BASE: THOSE WITH CHILDREN 70 88% %

Yes 70 68No 30 32

Of those couples where one or both partners have children from a previousrelationship, or there are joint children, seven in ten (70%) will have thosechildren living with them after marriage. This equates to approximately 28% ofthe total sample.

- 134 -


There is little difference between kit and voucher respondents on this measure.This suggests that based on the results of the previous questions about childrenfrom previous relationships and joint, there is also a greater propensity for blendedfamilies amongst kit couples. The increased proportion of step and blendedfamilies amongst kit couples could be the basis for the greater perceivedimportance of MRE amongst kit respondents with children (see section 12.1).

Three in five couples who will have children living in the home (60%) had childrenaged between four and ten years, and 45% of the couples had children agedunder three years. One in five couples had children in the 11 to 14 year agebracket (22%) and/or 15 years or older (19%).


APPENDIX A – QUALITATIVE RESEARCHAMONGST

CELEBRANTS, COUPLES ANDSERVICE PROVIDERS


QUESTIONNAIRES


APPENDIX B – CELEBRANT SURVEY

final report - dss · pdf filepre-marriage education pilot project final report to ......

Documents